In the standard derivation of the virial theorem, one assumes to be working in the energy basis. One then gets <T> = n/(n+2) <H>. This relation doesn't hold for the continuous spectrum of Coulomb potential where <T> > 0, <H> > 0, n/(n+2) = -1. So, where in the derivation did we use the fact we were dealing with bound states?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Validity of virial theorem in QM

Loading...

Similar Threads - Validity virial theorem | Date |
---|---|

I Is the PBR Theorem valid? | Sep 6, 2017 |

I Virial theorem as applied to hydrogen atom | Apr 11, 2017 |

I Why is association rule in angular momentum sum not valid? | Jul 21, 2016 |

Is BI really required to validate the Hidden Variables? | Feb 25, 2016 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**