Trying to calculate how <r> in the Hydrogen atom changes with time

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on calculating the time derivative of the expectation value of the radius in the Hydrogen atom using the equation \(\frac{d}{dt} = \frac{i}{\hbar} <[\hat{H}, \hat{r}]>\). The Hamiltonian \(\hat{H}\) is defined as \(\frac{p^2}{2m} + V\), where \(p^2 = -\hbar^2 \nabla^2\). The participants explore the implications of Ehrenfest's theorem, noting that behaves classically but does not yield a direct equivalent of velocity. They emphasize the importance of spherical symmetry in potential V and the relevance of radial wave functions in obtaining a constant for time-independent states.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Mechanics principles, particularly Ehrenfest's theorem.
  • Familiarity with the Hydrogen atom model and its Hamiltonian formulation.
  • Knowledge of operator algebra in quantum mechanics, specifically commutation relations.
  • Proficiency in vector calculus, particularly in spherical coordinates.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Ehrenfest's theorem in detail.
  • Learn about the Schrödinger equation solutions for central force problems.
  • Explore the implications of spherical symmetry in quantum systems.
  • Investigate the role of radial wave functions in determining expectation values in quantum mechanics.
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, advanced students of quantum mechanics, and researchers focusing on atomic structure and dynamics will benefit from this discussion.

user3
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
I am working on the Hydrogen atom and I was trying to calculate \frac{d&lt;r&gt;}{dt} using \frac{d&lt;r&gt;}{dt} = \frac{i}{\hbar} &lt;[\hat{H} , \hat{r}]&gt;. Here r = \sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2) and H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + V where p^2 = -\hbar^2 \nabla^2. Now according to Ehrenfest's theorem <r> should behave classically and give me some equivalent of velocity, and indeed I do get something but it does't resemble velocity: \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m} (2\nabla r \nabla f + f \nabla^2 r)

where f is a test function.

Steps:
[H ,r]f = [\frac{p^2}{2m} + V , r]f = \frac{p^2(rf)}{2m} + Vrf - \frac{rp^2(f)}{2m} - rVf = \frac{1}{2m}[p^2 ,r]f = \frac{1}{2m}[-\hbar^2\nabla^2 , r]f = \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}[\nabla^2 , r]f = \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m} (\nabla^2(rf) - r\nabla^2(f)) = \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m} (\nabla r\nabla f + r\nabla^2f + \nabla f \nabla r + f\nabla^2 r - r\nabla^2f) = \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m} (2\nabla r \nabla f + f \nabla^2 r)

Am I doing something wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no f and it's the operator ##[\hat{H},\hat{r}]## . You can multiply with i/##\hbar##, calculate ##\nabla r## and try to find ##\hat{p}##. There is a term I must think where it comes from(perhaps symetrisation of the product of classical observables that do not commute in the quantum world)
And remember ##r=\|\vec{r}\|## so classically ##\frac{dr}{dt}=...##
 
Last edited:
user3, might you show your work so we can check it?
 
just added the steps
 
Dear folks, at the risk of making a fool of myself: if you are interested in r, why work in Cartesian coordinates? (moot question, I would say, except for the appearance of ##r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}\ ## which makes me worry).

Then: if you wonder about ##\frac{d<r>}{dt}\,## : that 's got little to do with "some equivalent of velocity". Only with the radius. Interesting for radiative transitions and so on, but I don't think you'll be able to work towards a connection with the classical case there ...

For a central force problem (usually treated before the H atom), most textbooks manage to reduce the problem of solving the Schrödinger eqn via ##\Psi(\vec r) = R(r)\,Y(\theta, \phi)\ ## which follows from [H,L]=0 .

Then the H atom treatment yields radial wave functions that yield constant <r>. Time independent!

My textbook is Eugen Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed 1970 ...
 
Adding to this: I'd like a real QM teacher to step in and make clear what people like user3 can use as a mental image of this electron that classically circles the nucleus as a particle in the ubiquitous atom depiction, but quantum mechanically is such a mind-boggling ##\Psi## beast.

I mean, after a whole life of physics (HEP at that!) even the simplest excited state of the simplest atom is already beyond my down-to Earth abstraction level. Grmpf...:-p
 
BvU said:
Dear folks, at the risk of making a fool of myself: if you are interested in r, why work in Cartesian coordinates? (moot question, I would say, except for the appearance of ##r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}\ ## which makes me worry).

Then: if you wonder about ##\frac{d<r>}{dt}\,## : that 's got little to do with "some equivalent of velocity". Only with the radius. Interesting for radiative transitions and so on, but I don't think you'll be able to work towards a connection with the classical case there ...

For a central force problem (usually treated before the H atom), most textbooks manage to reduce the problem of solving the Schrödinger eqn via ##\Psi(\vec r) = R(r)\,Y(\theta, \phi)\ ## which follows from [H,L]=0 .

Then the H atom treatment yields radial wave functions that yield constant <r>. Time independent!

My textbook is Eugen Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed 1970 ...

You are right this is more useful.
I was trying to follow the path of the OP.

My turn to risk of making a fool of myself: r=cst is for time independent/ energy eigenstates, isn't it?(and V must be spherically symmetric if I remember correctly)

Here I would say the case is more general.
 
Last edited:
I find something like ##\frac{dr}{dt}=\frac{\vec{r}}{r}\cdot\frac{\vec{p}}{m}## for the classical system and ##\frac{d<r>}{dt}=\frac{1}{m}<\frac{\vec{r}}{r}\cdot \hat{\vec{p}}>-another\,term## for the quantum one.
 
Last edited:
Oh boy, so Ehrenfest is holding out quite well ! Provided we make the other term disappear. Can you post what you have thus far, bloby?

r=cst is for time independent/ energy eigenstates, isn't it? Yes, if you mean <r>; it's a number.

(and V must be spherically symmetric if I remember correctly) Yes: [H,L]=0 gets it all rolling.
 
  • #10
##\frac{d<r>}{dt}=\frac{-i\hbar}{2m}<2\frac{\vec{r}}{r}\cdot\nabla +\nabla^2 r> = \frac{1}{m}<\frac{\vec{r}}{r}\cdot \hat{\vec{p}}>-\frac{i\hbar}{m}<\frac{1}{r}>##

(If r is an observable, Ehrenfest's theorem is holding, even if the result does not look like the classical)
But are all those averaged operators observables? The i in the second term looks suspicious...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K