So, I was reading about the exchange interaction, and trying to work out what it referred to, and came across something strange in the treatment of the hydrogen molecule (I think it was on wikipedia):(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The hamiltonian given for the system included a term e^{2}/(4πε0 * Rab) for the repulsion between nuclei a and b, even though the wave equation was only for the motion of the electrons, and the nuclei are treated as fixed.

In classical physics, you can add a constant to the hamiltonian, and it doesn't change the physical picture of what is being described. It doesn't matter where zero reference energy is, in terms of the forces on the system.

In wave-mechanics, however, adding a constant to the hamiltonian does shift the frequency of the wavefunction, if not the spatial form of the stationary states. This leads me to wonder about the equivalence of the physical picture for non-stationary states. (time varying states, transient states when the electron cloud is in transition between two energy levels, behavior of free particles, etc.)

(Thinking back to optics:) If you have something like a beam focusing down to a focus point, then diverging - the minimum spot size for a given initial aperture is very much dependent on the wavelength, and here the wavelength seems to be dependent on this reference energy that (at least in classical mechanics)shouldbe arbitrary.

So: Do these constant terms added to the hamiltonian, and shifted frequencies change the system physically? (ie, the way the squared magnitude of the wavefunction moves around, Pauli velocities/currents, etc)?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Quantum Hamiltonian Question

Tags:

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**