Wave function for the Helium molecule

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the wave function for the helium molecule, specifically addressing the treatment of electron interactions and the implications of fermionic behavior in constructing the wave function.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand why the wave function can be expressed as a simple product of the individual electron wave functions, questioning the neglect of anti-symmetrization and the role of electron spin.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different interpretations of the wave function formulation, with some noting the need for anti-symmetrization and the consideration of spin states. There is an acknowledgment of the original poster's confusion regarding the book's claims.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the Schrödinger equation (SDE) and the specific conditions under which the wave function is derived, including the assumption of neglecting electron-electron interactions.

LCSphysicist
Messages
644
Reaction score
163
Homework Statement
...
Relevant Equations
...
I am having a trouble to understand why the helium's wave function (in which we are ignoring the electric interaction between the electrons, as well the motion and problems that arise in considering the nucleus in the wave function) can be written as the product of the wave function of both electron.

I mean, being the electron fermion particles, shouldn't it be written as:

$$\psi = (\psi_{(nlm)'}(r1)\psi_{nlm}(r2) - \psi_{(nlm)'}(r2)\psi_{nlm}(r1))/{\sqrt(2)}$$

?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What don't you understand?
 
PeroK said:
What don't you understand?
Instead the equation i gave, the book claims that the wave function is:
$$\psi = \psi_{nlm} \psi_{(nlm)'}$$

1611495415820.png
 
LCSphysicist said:
Instead the equation i gave, the book claims that the wave function is:
ψ=ψnlmψ(nlm)′

View attachment 276760
He says explicity that is a solution of the SDE. He hasn't yet considered the anti-symmetrization requirement - which, in any case, requires consideration of the spin state.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LCSphysicist
PeroK said:
He says explicity that is a solution of the SDE. He hasn't yet considered the anti-symmetrization requirement - which, in any case, requires consideration of the spin state.
Good point. That's it
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K