Variational Estimate of Hydrogen Atom Ground State Energy

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around obtaining a variational estimate of the ground state energy of the hydrogen atom using a trial wave function. The participants are exploring the implications of their chosen trial function and the necessary integrals involved in calculating the expectation values of kinetic and potential energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to minimize the expectation value of the Hamiltonian, questioning the correct form of the potential energy and the integration process. There are inquiries about the integration limits and the form of the differential volume element.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing guidance on the need to consider both kinetic and potential energy in the Hamiltonian. There is an ongoing exploration of the integrals required for the calculations, and some participants are questioning their understanding of the radial dependence in the integrals.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of specific assumptions regarding the form of the Coulomb potential and the normalization constant, as well as the need to clarify the integration limits for the expectation values.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
Obtain a variational estimate of the ground state energy of the hydrogen atom by taking as a trial function \psi_T(r) = \text{exp } \left( - \alpha r^2 \right)

How does your result compare with the exact result?

You may assume that

\int_0^\infty \text{exp } \left( - b r^2 \right) dr = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ \frac{\pi}{b}}

and that 1 \text{Ry} = \left( \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \right)^2 \frac{m}{2 \hbar^2}

so i obviously need to minimise

E[r] = \frac{ \langle \psi \vline \hat{V} \vline \psi \rangle}{ \langle \psi \vline \psi \rangle}

i think I'm getting the wrong answer because my V is wrong.

so i want a coulomb potential between a proton and a electron surely?

V=\frac{-e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}
clearly I'm going wrong since i have this r^{-2} term that i don't know how to integrate (the only r dependence in hte given integral is in the exponent) and also i haven't used the rydberg thing (although i guess that might not be needed until the end of the question).

thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to minimize the expectation value of the whole Hamiltonian, not just the potential energy.

<H>=<T>+<V>

where <T> is the expectation value of the kinetic energy term, so you have to do two integrals. Furthermore, the Coulomb potential goes as 1/r not 1/r2.
 
Last edited:
okay but i still get integrals with r terms outside the exponential

\langle \psi | \hat{H} | \psi \rangle = - \int_V \frac{\hbar^2}{m} \text{exp} ( - 2 \alpha r^2) ( 2 \alpha r^2 - \alpha ) dV - \int_V \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r} \text{exp} ( - 2 \alpha r^2 )

and the normalisation on the denominator works out at \sqrt{2} \pi^{\frac{3}{2}}

any idea on how to proceed? thanks.
 
Are you saying you don't know how to do the integrals? What is dV and what are your limits of integration?
 
dV=r^2 \sin{\theta} dr d\theta d\phi

so we can pull out a 4 \pi from the theta and phi integrals. then the r integral is from 0 to infinity since dV is all space.

so, for example how do we integrate

\int_0^\infty -\frac{4 \pi \hbar^2}{m} 2 \alpha r^2 \text{exp} ( - 2 \alpha r^2) dr

the given formula doesn't apply here, does it?
 
No it does not. However, before we go into that, can you write the complete expression for the integral giving the expectation value for the kinetic energy?
 
ok.

\langle \psi | \hat{T} | \psi \rangle = \int_0^\infty \int_0^\pi \int_0^{2 \pi} e^{- \alpha r^2} -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} (2 \alpha r^2 - \alpha) e^{- \alpha r^2} r^2 \sin{\theta} dr d \theta d \phi = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \int_0^\infty \int_0^\pi \int_0^{2 \pi} r^2 (2 \alpha r^2 - \alpha) e^{- 2 \alpha r^2} \sin{\theta} dr d \theta d \phi

i can't see why this is wrong...
 
You are missing the normalization constant, but that can always be added later.
I think the radial Laplacian term is incorrect. Can you show how you derived it?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K