Valid to use <1/r3> to get spin-orbit correction to H? (perturbation)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of using the expression <1/r^3> to derive the first-order correction to the Hamiltonian due to spin-orbit coupling in a hydrogen atom. Participants explore the implications of using the eigenstate ψ_{nlm} in perturbation theory, particularly in relation to its commutation properties with the spin-orbit Hamiltonian.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of using ψ_{nlm} as a "good state" in perturbation theory due to its eigenstate nature with respect to L_{z} and the non-commutation with the spin-orbit Hamiltonian.
  • Another participant requests references for the derivation presented, indicating a need for clarity on the source material.
  • A participant confirms that the ψ_{nlm} functions are not "good" due to the m index, suggesting that linear combinations of these states would be more appropriate.
  • Concerns are raised about the cross terms in the calculation of <1/r^3>, with one participant questioning how it can be established that these terms are zero.
  • A later reply indicates that upon calculation, the cross terms are indeed found to be zero, suggesting a resolution to that specific concern.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of using ψ_{nlm} in perturbation theory, with some agreeing on the need for linear combinations while others focus on the implications of the cross terms. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of these points.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the definitions of "good states" and the implications of using specific eigenstates in perturbation theory. There are unresolved aspects regarding the assumptions made about the cross terms in the calculations.

Happiness
Messages
686
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
<1/r^3> uses the standard wavefunctions ψ_nlm of hydrogen, which are not good states to use in perturbation theory because the Hamiltonian (under spin-orbit interaction) no longer commutes with L. So shouldn't we solve for the simultaneous eigenstates of L^2, S^2, J^2 and J_z first? And then use those to find <1/r^3>?
Below is the derivation of E1so, the first-order correction to the Hamiltonian due to spin-orbit coupling of the election in hydrogen atom. My question is whether it's valid to use [6.64] (see below). ##<\frac{1}{r^3}>## I believe is ##<\psi_{nlm}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\psi_{nlm}>##, but ##\psi_{nlm}## is NOT a good state to use in perturbation theory, because ##\psi_{nlm}## is an eigenstate of ##L_{z}## but H'so does not commute with ##L## (as mentioned in the paragraph above [6.62]-[6.63]).

Screenshot 2024-06-24 at 1.46.49 AM.png

Screenshot 2024-06-24 at 1.46.24 AM.png

For elaboration, the phrase "good state" relates to the following theorem:

Screenshot 2024-06-24 at 1.53.20 AM.png

Screenshot 2024-06-24 at 1.53.34 AM.png

Ordinary first-order perturbation theory means using [6.9] below, with ##\psi^{0}_{n}## replaced with a good state.

Screenshot 2024-06-24 at 1.57.15 AM.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Happiness said:
Below is the derivation
Where is this from? Please give a reference.
 
PeterDonis said:
Where is this from? Please give a reference.
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edition, by David J. Griffiths
 
Indeed, the ##\psi_{nlm}## are not "good" functions, because of the ##m## index, and the "good" functions will be linear combinations of ##\psi_{nlm}## with different ##m##. However, the value of ##\braket{1/r^3}## is independent of ##m##, therefore you you know that the linear combination will have the given value, whichever ##m## states are combined.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Happiness and pines-demon
DrClaude said:
Indeed, the ##\psi_{nlm}## are not "good" functions, because of the ##m## index, and the "good" functions will be linear combinations of ##\psi_{nlm}## with different ##m##. However, the value of ##\braket{1/r^3}## is independent of ##m##, therefore you you know that the linear combination will have the given value, whichever ##m## states are combined.

But how do you know that the "cross terms" are zero?

Suppose a good state ##\psi^{0}=\alpha\psi_{a}+\beta\psi_{b}## , where ##\psi_{a}## and ##\psi_{b}## are some ##\psi_{nlm}## .

##\braket{\frac{1}{r^3}}=\braket{\alpha\psi_{a}+\beta\psi_{b}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\alpha\psi_{a}+\beta\psi_{b}}##

##=\alpha^2\braket{\psi_{a}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\psi_{a}}+\beta^2\braket{\psi_{b}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\psi_{b}}+\alpha^*\beta\braket{\psi_{a}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\psi_{b}}+\alpha\beta^*\braket{\psi_{b}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\psi_{a}}##

How do you know the cross terms ##\braket{\psi_{a}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\psi_{b}}## and ##\braket{\psi_{b}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\psi_{a}}## are zero?
 
Last edited:
Happiness said:
How do you know the cross terms ##\braket{\psi_{a}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\psi_{b}}## and ##\braket{\psi_{b}|\frac{1}{r^3}|\psi_{a}}## are zero?
Ok, I've tried calculating them. They are indeed zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pines-demon

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K