Separability of vibrational and rotational motion for diatomics

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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top