Parity dependence on the orbital quantum number (l)

soccer_dude13
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I know that the angular momentum eigenfunctions in spherical coordinates are spherical harmonics, Ylm ( \theta, \phi ) \propto (-1)mPlm(cos\theta)eim\phi.
Applying the parity operator to Ylm ( \theta,\phi ) means that \theta -> \pi - \theta and \phi -> \phi +\pi.
This implies that eim\phi will pick up a (-1)m factor. However, from the definition of the Plm(cos\theta)'s I don't see how I can pick up a factor of (-1)l-2m in order to give parity the final correct dependence of (-1)l. In fact I don't see how we can creep up a dependence on l, at all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider first the special case of the P_ll, i.e. the case with m=l. The P_ll are just the ordinary Legendre functions which are even polynomials in x=cos theta for even l and odd polynomials for odd l. The associated Legendre Polynomials P_lm contain m further derivatives with respect to x so that the odd/evenness changes with m.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top