Normalization constant for orbital wave functions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on finding the normalization constant for the wavefunction ψ(r1, r2) defined as the antisymmetrized product of two normalized orbitals, ∅1s and ∅1p. The normalization constant is derived using the orthonormality of the orbitals, which simplifies the integral calculations. It is established that the first and last terms in the normalization equation equal 1, while the middle terms equal 0 due to orthonormality. Consequently, the normalization constant is determined to be 1/√2. The explanation clarifies the process, making it easier to understand the normalization of antisymmetrized wavefunctions.
Kaiten7
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Suppose I have a wavefunction

ψ(r1, r2)= (∅1s(r1) ∅1p(r2) - ∅1s(r2) ∅1p(r1))

And I know that ∅1s(r1) and ∅1p(r1) are normalized. How would I go about finding the normalization constant for ψ(r1, r2)?

Everywhere I look just whips out a \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} out of nowhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater_determinant
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/lectures/node59.html
http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/intro_estruc/intro_estruc.pdf

Are a few examples

A few of those seem to mention something about orthonormal orbitals, but their definition seems to rely on Dirac notation, which I'm not that familiar with. That also means it was infuriating to find this other thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=178292, that looks like would've really helped me had I understood what the second poster said.

Currently I'm exactly where the first poster is, with

\frac{1}{N²} = \int(∅1s(r1) ∅1p(r2) - 2 \int ∅1s(r1) ∅1p(r2) ∅1s(r2) ∅1p(r1) + \int ∅1p(r2) ∅1s(r2

As I mentioned, I think I know that the first and third terms must equal 1 for some reason, and the middle one equal 0, but I don't exactly know why. Any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dirac's notation is "simply" (for our purpose)

<a|b>=\int_{\Omega} a^*b\, d\Omega, where a-star is the complex conjugate.

If two functions are orthonormal (in QM meaning) means that <a|b>=1 if a=b, 0 otherwise.

Now, since the function we are dealing with are orthonormal, you expression simplifies because N^2=<\psi(x_1,x_2)|\psi(x_1,x_2)>=<\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)-\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)|\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)-\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)>=\int \left[\chi_1(x_1)^*\chi_2(x_2)^*-\chi_1(x_2)^*\chi_2(x_1)^*\right]\cdot\left[\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)-\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)\right] d\Omega

From now on, it's only the application of integration rules
Dirac's formalism is more straightforward, so I'll use it, I hope you'll understand. Otherwise, tell me and I'll re-write all the stuff :
N^2=<\psi(x_1,x_2)|\psi(x_1,x_2)>=<\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)-\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)|\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)-\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)>=
<\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)|\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)-\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)>-<\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)|\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)-\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)>=
<\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)|\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)>-<\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)|\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)>-<\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)|\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)+<\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)|\chi_1(x_2) \chi_2(x_1)>
In the first and in the last terms the same terms appear at the left and the right of the |, like <a|a>. Because of orthonormality, they both account for 1.
The middle terms have different terms, like <a|b> and <b|a>, so, again, for orthonormality they account for 0.
So
N^2&lt;\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)|\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)&gt;-&lt;\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)|\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)&gt;-&lt;\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)|\chi_1(x_1)\chi_2(x_2)+&lt;\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)|\chi_1(x_2)\chi_2(x_1)&gt;=1-0-0+1=2
So the normalization constant is 1/N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

Hope it is clearer =)
 
It is! I think I got it now, thanks!
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K