Solving a Particle on the Surface of a Sphere: Obtaining Eigenvalues

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the time-independent Schrödinger equation (TISE) for a particle constrained to the surface of a sphere, focusing on the derivation and implications of eigenvalues associated with the Hamiltonian operator. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical reasoning, and boundary conditions relevant to quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • The Hamiltonian for a particle on a sphere is expressed in terms of the angular momentum operator, leading to a specific form of the TISE.
  • One participant questions how to ascertain that the eigenvalues derived are exhaustive, particularly if alternative values for ##k^2## could yield additional solutions.
  • Another participant references the Sturm-Liouville theorem to assert that only specific eigenvalues, namely ##k^2 = \ell(\ell+1)##, correspond to solutions of the differential equation.
  • Discussion arises regarding the role of boundary conditions in determining eigenvalues, with comparisons made to other quantum mechanical problems, such as the particle-in-a-box scenario.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the implications of regularity at poles for the Legendre polynomials and how this relates to the eigenvalues of the Sturm-Liouville problem.
  • One participant presents a modern treatment of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, emphasizing the use of commutation relations and the ladder operator method to derive eigenvalues.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of half-integer eigenvalues and their implications for the self-adjoint nature of the operators involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the completeness of the eigenvalues derived from the TISE, with some asserting that only specific values are valid while others question the implications of alternative values. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the sufficiency of boundary conditions and the nature of eigenvalues.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the derivation of eigenvalues is contingent upon specific boundary conditions and the regularity of solutions, which may not be universally applicable across different quantum systems. The discussion also highlights the complexity of the mathematical framework involved in solving the TISE in spherical coordinates.

Salmone
Messages
101
Reaction score
13
The Hamiltonian of a particle of mass ##m## on the surface of a sphere of radius ##R## is ##H=\frac{L^2}{2mR^2}## where ##L## is the angular momentum operator. I want to solve the TISE ##\hat{H}\psi=E\psi## and in order to do that I rewrite ##L^2## in Schroedinger's representation in spherical coordinates so ##\frac{1}{sin(\theta)}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta}(sin(\theta)\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \theta})+\frac{1}{sin^2(\theta)}\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial \phi^2}=-\frac{2mER^2}{\hbar^2}\psi=-k^2\psi## after some steps one can get ##\frac{sin(\theta)}{\Theta(\theta)}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta}(sin(\theta)\frac{\partial \Theta(\theta)}{\partial \theta})+K^2sin^2(\theta)+\frac{1}{\Phi(\phi)}\frac{\partial^2 \Phi(\phi)}{\partial \phi^2}=0## having used ##\psi=\Theta(\theta)\Phi(\phi)##. Now the two parts dipend on different variables so they must be equal to a constant, let's call this constant ##m^2## and I obtain two equations:

##\frac{sin(\theta)}{\Theta(\theta)}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta}(sin(\theta)\frac{\partial \Theta(\theta)}{\partial \theta})+K^2sin^2(\theta)=m^2## ##(1)##

##\frac{1}{\Phi(\phi)}\frac{\partial^2 \Phi(\phi)}{\partial \phi^2}=-m^2## ##(2)##

The equation ##(1)## could be rearranged and written as:
##\frac{\partial^2 \Theta(\theta)}{\partial \theta^2}+\frac{cos(\theta)}{sin(\theta)}\frac{\partial \Theta(\theta)}{\partial \theta}+[k^2-\frac{m^2}{sin^2(\theta)}]\Theta(\theta)=0##
which is, by choosing ##k^2=l(l+1)## the legendre associated differential equation according to https://mathworld.wolfram.com/AssociatedLegendreDifferentialEquation.html equation ##(9)##.

This leads to Energy eigenvalues ##E=\frac{\hbar^2l(l+1)}{2mR^2}##.

My questions:

1)

How do we know that the eigenvalues found are *all* the eigenvalues for this problem? If ##k^2## had a different value, for example ##k^2##=3, which is not a value obtainable with ##k^2=l(l+1)##, how do we know that the differential equation would have no solutions?

##\frac{\partial^2 \Theta(\theta)}{\partial \theta^2}+\frac{cos(\theta)}{sin(\theta)}\frac{\partial \Theta(\theta)}{\partial \theta}+[3-\frac{m^2}{sin^2(\theta)}]\Theta(\theta)=0## Does this TISE have solutions? How do we know that? Because if this TISE has solutions than I obtain the eigenvalue ##E=\frac{3\hbar^2}{2mR^2}## which is not in the list ##E=\frac{\hbar^2l(l+1)}{2mR^2}##.

2)
Usually in quantum mechanics problems, we find the eigenvalues by imposing that our eigenfunction is square-integrable, in this case what we do is putting ##k^2=l(l+1)##, does this represent the request that the eigenfunctions must be square-integrable?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1) This follows from the Sturm-Liouville theorem. It is not that we are assuming ##k^2 = \ell(\ell+1)##, it is the Sturm-Liouville operator involved that has those eigenvalues. Any other ##k^2## would not have a corresponding solution just as there are no vectors ##x## such that ##Ax = \lambda x## for a matrix ##A## unless ##\lambda## is an eigenvalue of ##A##.

2) No, it is from the requirement that the function must satisfy certain boundary conditions. Compare to fitting the sines ##\sin(kx)## that solves the particle-in-a-box problem with ##0<x<L##. In order to satisfy ##\sin(kL)=0##, only a discrete set of values ##k = \pi n/L## (##n\in \mathbb Z##) are allowed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Salmone and vanhees71
@Orodruin Thanks for your answers, about anwer no.2: so in this case ##k^2=l(l+1)## is a boundary condition for the eigenfunctions?
 
Salmone said:
@Orodruin Thanks for your answers, about anwer no.2: so in this case ##k^2=l(l+1)## is a boundary condition for the eigenfunctions?
Not per se. You should consider it as a result for the eigenvalues of the Sturm-Liouville problem (which includes appropriate boundary conditions).

In the case of the Legendre polynomials, those boundary conditions are essentially that the function is regular at the poles. One way of seeing this is considering the Taylor expansion around zero of the solution to the Legendre differential equation. The differential equation will lead to a recursion relation for the expansion coefficients and you can show that the Taylor series diverges at ##\pm 1## unless it terminates - which will only happen for eigenvalues ##\ell(\ell+1)##. Hence, Legendre polynomials.

Just as for the sine and cosine solutions for the particle in a box, the Legendre differential equation is of order two and therefore has two linearly independent solutions. For the eigenvalues of the Sturm-Liouville problem the second solution (often denoted ##Q_\ell##) is not regular at ##\pm 1##.

If you can get access to my book this is discussed in some detail in section 5.5.2 which treats finding the eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator in spherical coordinates.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Salmone and vanhees71
I think the modern treatment is much more clear (and incomplete in almost all standard QM textbooks; the only exceptions I'm aware of is Ballentine and the German textbook by Münster).

In my QM lecture I do it in the following way:

(1) Start with the representation-free treatment, based solely on the commutation relations of (Cartesian) angular-momentum components,
$$[\hat{J}_a,\hat{J}_b]=\mathrm{i} \epsilon_{abc} \hat{J}_c.$$
Then you can look for the common eigenvectors of ##\hat{\vec{J}}^2## and ##\hat{J}_3## using the "ladder operators" ##\hat{J}_{\pm}=\hat{J}_1 \pm \mathrm{i} \hat{J}_2## with the standard result that the eigenvalues of ##\hat{\vec{J}}^2## are ##j(j+1)## with ##j \in \{0,1/2,1,3/2,\ldots \}## and those for ##\hat{J}_3## being ##m \in \{-j,-j+1,\ldots,j-1,j \}##. You make heavy use of the properties of self-adjoint operators.

(2) Then consider the special case of orbital angular momentum, which is given in terms of position and momentum operators (within the Heisenberg algebra),
$$\hat{\vec{L}}=\hat{\vec{x}} \times \hat{\vec{p}}.$$
This enables you to consider the 2D isotropic harmonic oscillator in the (12)-plane with the annihilation operators for "phonons" ##\hat{a}_1##, ##\hat{a}_2## and, in addition, ##\hat{b}=1/\sqrt{2} (\hat{a}_1 + \mathrm{i} \hat{a}_2)##. Then you can solve the common eigenvalue problem for ##\hat{N}=\hat{N}_1+\hat{N}_2## and ##\hat{N}_b=\hat{b}^{\dagger} \hat{b}##, for which ##\hat{L}_3=\hat{N}-2 \hat{N}_b##, which shows that the eigenvalues of ##\hat{L}_3## take only (all) integer values, i.e., there are only integer (true) representations for the rotation algebra in case of orbital angular momentum.

(3) Only now you go into the "position representation" in spherical coordinates. The orbital-angular momentum eigenfunctions then live in ##\mathrm{L}^2(S)##, where ##S## is the unit sphere in ##\mathbb{R}^3##, parametrized with the angles ##(\vartheta,\varphi)##. The scalar product is
$$\langle u_1 | u_2 \rangle=\int_0^{\pi} \mathrm{d} \vartheta \sin \vartheta \int_0^{2 \pi} \mathrm{d} \varphi u_1^*(\vartheta,\varphi) u_2(\vartheta,\varphi).$$
The eigenfunctions are then easily constructed starting with ##\text{Y}_{\ell \ell}## from ##\hat{L}_+ \text{Y}_{\ell \ell}=0## and then using ##\hat{L}_-## to get all the ##\text{Y}_{\ell m}## for fixed ##\ell \in \mathbb{N}_0##.

It's also an amusing exercise to show, why this construction fails when assuming falsely that ##\ell=1/2## (or any other half-integer value) were a solution. It's, because you get apparent "eigenfunctions" which lie not all in the domain of the ##\hat{\vec{L}}## as self-adjoint operators. Particularly you can start with ##\text{Y}_{1/2,1/2}## defined by ##\hat{L}_+ \text{Y}_{1/2,1/2}=0## and then repeatly apply ##\hat{L}_-##. You get also a function ##\text{Y}_{1/2,-1/2}## but then applying ##\hat{L}_-## once more you don't get 0 but a function which is no longer in ##\mathrm{L}^2(S)##.

The way using partial differential equations is quite tedious but of course leads to the same conclusions:

W. Pauli, Helv. Acta. Physica 12, 147 (1939) (in German)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby and Salmone

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
930
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
995
Replies
3
Views
1K