Separability of vibrational and rotational motion for diatomics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the justification of the approximation that vibrational and rotational motions of diatomic molecules can be treated as separable. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of the Hamiltonian for a diatomic system and the conditions under which this separation is valid, considering both theoretical and practical implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Hamiltonian for a diatomic molecule and attempts to show its separability into center of mass and reduced mass components, questioning the validity of approximations made in the process.
  • Another participant suggests splitting the potential energy term into two separate terms to facilitate the analysis.
  • A different participant notes that the Hamiltonian commutes with J^2, indicating that it can be separated into angular and radial components, but mentions that the solvability of the radial equation may depend on specific potential forms.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of considering relative transition energies and draws a parallel to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, suggesting that vibrational and rotational transitions typically exhibit low coupling due to differing energy scales.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of specific mathematical approximations and the conditions under which vibrational and rotational motions can be considered separable. There is no consensus on the best approach to justify the approximation.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge potential limitations in their assumptions, particularly regarding the energy scales of vibrational and rotational transitions and the applicability of perturbation theory. The discussion remains open to various interpretations of the Hamiltonian's separability.

tomothy
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I'd like some help justifying the approximation that the vibrational and rotational motion of a diatomic molecule is separable.
For two atoms of masses m1 and m2 the full hamiltonian is
H=-\hbar ^2 /2m_1 \nabla _1 ^2 - \hbar^2 /2m_2 \nabla _2 ^2 + V(r-r_0)
Where V(r-r0) is the potential energy function, r0 is the equilibrium bond length and r is the atomic separation r=|\textbf{x} _1- \textbf{x} _2|. This is seperable into a centre of mass hamiltonian and one in terms of the reduced mass, in the molecular frame. The hamiltonian in the molecular frame is
H_\mu = -\hbar ^2 /2\mu \nabla ^2 - V(|\textbf{x}|-r_0)
From this point, I'm not sure how to show that the hamiltonian is approximately separable. I tried writing it in terms of the equilibrium displacement x=r-r_0 and then by saying in the approximation that x>>r_0 , x/r_0 \approx 0 so in the hamiltonian r^2=r_0^2(1+x/r_0)^2\approx r_0^2 but since r=x+r_0 is a variable and not a constant of motion, this seems like a dodgy approximation. Any help would be valued greatly!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would try to split the last term into two terms.
 
This hamiltonian commutes with J^2 so it is separable into an angular part (the spherical harmonics) and an equation in r. The equation will only in general be solvable for j=0, if it is something like a harmonic potential or a morse potential. So the only way to get the rotational energy out is to throw use first order perturbation theory. So the rotational energy is a first order perturbation or vibrational energy?
 
Throw away the mathematics for 5 seconds and ask yourself what are the relative transition energies. This is the same reason that we can typically decouple vibrational and electronic transitions through the Born-Oppenheimer approx. Of course there can be ro-vibrational coupling in the same way that B-O fails at conical intersections, but for the most part the two transitions are at such different energy scales that they have low coupling strengths.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K