QM Questions: Operators, Eigenfunctions, and Hydrogen-like Atoms Explained"

  • Thread starter Thread starter deep582
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm
deep582
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I just had a couple quick questions while I'm reviewing for a test...

If two operators commute, what can we say about their eigenfunctions?

x commutes with pz, correct?

I understand that the energy for a hydrogen-like atom depends on n according to the equation ((-z^2 μe^4)/(2(4πϵ_o )^2 ℏ^2 ) 1/n^2 ), but why does it not depend on l also? Isn't a 3p electron supposed to have more energy than a 3s electron? Or is that only in many electron atoms?

Thanks, any help appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
deep582 said:
If two operators commute, what can we say about their eigenfunctions?
If two [hermitian] operators commute, then there exists a common eigenbasis for the two operators.
deep582 said:
x commutes with pz, correct?
Indeed.
deep582 said:
I understand that the energy for a hydrogen-like atom depends on n according to the equation ((-z^2 μe^4)/(2(4πϵ_o )^2 ℏ^2 ) 1/n^2 ), but why does it not depend on l also? Isn't a 3p electron supposed to have more energy than a 3s electron? Or is that only in many electron atoms?
You are correct. Since the Hydrogen atom has a purely Coulomb potential, the energy levels are indeed degenerate with respect to l. However, as you correctly note, this is not the case with many-electron atoms.
 
Actually, even in hydrogen the 3p and 3s (or 2p and 2s) levels are not quite degenerate because of QED effects: the Lamb shift of 2p vs 2s being the most famous example.

But leaving out QED effects the levels with the same n and different l are indeed degenerate in H: this has to do with a symmetry that the H atom has, but no other: the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is conserved for an exact 1/r potential.
 
Attention mna skt!

mna skt, I've moved your homework question to a new thread in one of the homework forums... click the following link to go to it:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=271329

Everybody else, please carry on. I'll try to remember to delete this post in a few days.
 
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