• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

Radial Wave Function

1,644
2
Radial Wave Function; Normalized Radial Wave Function

5. Is the brute-force method the only way to show the Equation is satisfied? By that I mean differentiating R20 once, twice, and substituting it in? I tried that earlier, but it was very nasty.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-09-18100956.jpg?t=1284823040 [Broken]

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-09-18100944.jpg?t=1284823023 [Broken]

7. I'm not quite sure what I'm doing wrongly. I think I'm kind of close to the correct procedure.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-09-18114302.jpg?t=1284828367 [Broken]

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-09-18114318.jpg?t=1284828434 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vela

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
14,458
1,123
Re: Radial Wave Function; Normalized Radial Wave Function

5. Is the brute-force method the only way to show the Equation is satisfied? By that I mean differentiating R20 once, twice, and substituting it in? I tried that earlier, but it was very nasty.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-09-18100956.jpg?t=1284823040 [Broken]

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-09-18100944.jpg?t=1284823023 [Broken]
I'm afraid you're going to have to revise your notion of nasty. The function is of the form c(1-x)e-x. It's pretty straightforward to show it satisfies the radial equation by direct substitution.
7. I'm not quite sure what I'm doing wrongly. I think I'm kind of close to the correct procedure.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-09-18114302.jpg?t=1284828367 [Broken]

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-09-18114318.jpg?t=1284828434 [Broken]
You need a factor of r2 in your normalization integral. It comes from the volume element in spherical coordinates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,644
2
Re: Radial Wave Function; Normalized Radial Wave Function

I'm afraid you're going to have to revise your notion of nasty. The function is of the form c(1-x)e-x. It's pretty straightforward to show it satisfies the radial equation by direct substitution.

You need a factor of r2 in your normalization integral. It comes from the volume element in spherical coordinates.
I'll look at it again. I must not have simplified it enough. But having to do the product rule so many times made it "nasty."

Also, I'm only integrating with respect to r, not theta and phi. Do I still need r^2? I'm a bit rusty on my coordinate transformations.
 
Last edited:

vela

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
14,458
1,123
Re: Radial Wave Function; Normalized Radial Wave Function

Also, I'm only integrating with respect to r, not theta and phi. Do I still need r^2? I'm a bit rusty on my coordinate transformations.
Yes, you need the factor of r2. The complete wave function is ψnlm=Rnl(r)Ylm(θ,φ), and its normalization condition is

[tex]1=\int\psi_{nlm}^*\psi_{nlm}r^2drd\Omega=\int R_{nl}^*R_{nl}r^2dr\int Y_{lm}^*Y_{lm}d\Omega[/tex]

By convention, the individual pieces are normalized so that the radial and angular integrals are equal to 1 individually.
 
1,644
2
Re: Radial Wave Function; Normalized Radial Wave Function

Yes, you need the factor of r2. The complete wave function is ψnlm=Rnl(r)Ylm(θ,φ), and its normalization condition is

[tex]1=\int\psi_{nlm}^*\psi_{nlm}r^2drd\Omega=\int R_{nl}^*R_{nl}r^2dr\int Y_{lm}^*Y_{lm}d\Omega[/tex]

By convention, the individual pieces are normalized so that the radial and angular integrals are equal to 1 individually.
So, d-omega is just d-theta, d-phi, right?

For this problem I only need to show the radial function is normalized. How do I show the angular function is similarly normalized? Or is that even possible given that I do not know the magnetic quantum number?

Of course, showing the radial function is normalized is quite easy in this case.
 
Last edited:

vela

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
14,458
1,123
Re: Radial Wave Function; Normalized Radial Wave Function

So, d-omega is just d-theta, d-phi, right?
Not exactly. It's sin θ dθ dφ, which is sometimes written d(cos θ) dφ.
For this problem I only need to show the radial function is normalized. How do I show the angular function is similarly normalized? Or is that even possible given that I do not know the magnetic quantum number?
You can't. Without knowing m because you don't know what Ylm is (though there's only three possibilities), but you're not asked about the angular part anyway. I was just showing you why the factor of r2 appears in the integral for normalizing the radial wave function.
Of course, showing the radial function is normalized is quite easy in this case.
 
1,644
2
Re: Radial Wave Function; Normalized Radial Wave Function

Not exactly. It's sin θ dθ dφ, which is sometimes written d(cos θ) dφ.
Ah. I forgot about those extra terms that appear when you transform to polar spherical coordinates. I think we covered how they got there in my vector analysis class last semester, but I forgot how to do that. And I'm not talking about simply using the little formulas that transform from Cartesian to polar cylindrical/spherical. We used tensor notation for all that stuff.
You can't. Without knowing m because you don't know what Ylm is (though there's only three possibilities), but you're not asked about the angular part anyway. I was just showing you why the factor of r2 appears in the integral for normalizing the radial wave function.
That's what I figured. I always like to know the general case or context, so I'm glad you wrote everything out.
 
1,644
2
Well, chief, it hasn't been pretty straightforward. Forgive my chicken scratch.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/1-1.jpg?t=1284850615 [Broken]

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2-1.jpg?t=1284850626 [Broken]

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/3.jpg?t=1284850640 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vela

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
14,458
1,123
Well, I'm not terribly interested in checking your algebra, but I can make some suggestions to make the algebra a bit less tedious. First, pull a factor of 2 out so you have

[tex]R_{20}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}a_0^{3/2}}\left(1-\frac{r}{2a_0}\right)e^{-r/2a_0}[/tex]

Note when you do this, r always appears over 2a0. Next, when you find R'20, simplify before proceeding. You should find

[tex]R'_{20} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}a_0^{3/2}}\left[\frac{1}{2a_0}\left(\frac{r}{2a_0}-2\right)e^{-r/2a_0}\right][/tex]

Keep the original normalization constant separate because it's going to be common to every term so you can cancel it out. Same with the exponential factor.

Finally, the sum of the first two terms of the differential equation will be a polynomial multiplying an exponential and the normalization constant. That polynomial will factor. The product of one factor, the exponential times, and the normalization constant will be R20.
 
Last edited:
1,644
2
Well, I'm not terribly interested in checking your algebra, but I can make some suggestions to make the algebra a bit less tedious. First, pull a factor of 2 out so you have

[tex]R_{20}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}a_0^{3/2}}\left(1-\frac{r}{2a_0}\right)e^{-r/2a_0}[/tex]

Note when you do this, r always appears over 2a0. Next, when you find R'20, simplify before proceeding. You should find

[tex]R'_{20} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}a_0^{3/2}}\left[\frac{1}{2a_0}\left(\frac{r}{2a_0}-2\right)e^{-r/2a_0}\right][/tex]

Keep the original normalization constant separate because it's going to be common to every term so you can cancel it out. Same with the exponential factor.

Finally, the sum of the first two terms of the differential equation will be a polynomial multiplying an exponential and the normalization constant. That polynomial will factor. The product of one factor, the exponential times, and the normalization constant will be R20.
Well, I took out the alpha and only differentiate the non-constant terms. Quite a few of them canceled. I think my algebra is correct up until the last image I posted. That's probably the only work that needs review. But let me incorporate your simplifications and see what I get.

Okay. I got the same thing for R'20. I assume with R'', I can bring out the 1/2a0 to make things easier since it's just another constant.
 
Last edited:
1,644
2
Here's what I got for R''20.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-09-19135530.jpg?t=1284922635 [Broken]

This is pissing me off. Nothing canceled this time, assuming I did R'' correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vela

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
14,458
1,123
That matches what I got, so now you have

[tex]R''(r)+\frac{2}{r}R'(r) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}a_0^{3/2}}e^{-r/2a_0}\left[-\frac{1}{(2a_0)^2}\left(\frac{r}{2a_0}-3\right)+\frac{2}{r}\frac{1}{2a_0}\left(\frac{r}{2a_0}-2\right)\right][/tex]

Since r/2a0 appears to be a natural combination, I'd write the factor of 2/r in the differential equation in terms of it:

[tex]\frac{2}{r} = 2\left(\frac{1}{2a_0}\right)\left(\frac{2a_0}{r}\right)[/tex]

then you'll have a common factor of 1/(2a0)2 that you can factor out. You should be left with some combination of constants and powers of r/2a0.

I misspoke earlier when I said you'd end up with a polynomial multiplying the exponential. You actually have to pull out a factor of 2a0/r before you get the polynomial you can factor.
 
Last edited:
1,644
2
That matches what I got, so now you have

[tex]R''(r)+\frac{2}{r}R'(r) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}a_0^{3/2}}e^{-r/2a_0}\left[-\frac{1}{(2a_0)^2}\left(\frac{r}{2a_0}-3\right)+\frac{2}{r}\frac{1}{2a_0}\left(\frac{r}{2a_0}-2\right)\right][/tex]

Since r/2a0 appears to be a natural combination, I'd write the factor of 2/r in the differential equation in terms of it:

[tex]\frac{2}{r} = 2\left(\frac{1}{2a_0}\right)\left(\frac{2a_0}{r}\right)[/tex]

then you'll have a common factor of 1/(2a0)2 that you can factor out. You should be left with some combination of constants and powers of r/2a0.

I misspoke earlier when I said you'd end up with a polynomial multiplying the exponential. You actually have to pull out a factor of 2a0/r before you get the polynomial you can factor.
Okay. That's making sense. I don't know why I didn't factor out the common terms. Let me see how far I can get now.

Besides the common terms, I'm getting -r/2a0 + 7 -6a0/r
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: Radial Wave Function

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
9K
Replies
7
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
650
Top