Wave solution of nucleus alongwith that of electrons required

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter akbmurugan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrons Nucleus Wave
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on solving the Schrödinger equation for the Hydrogen atom, specifically seeking wave functions for both the nucleus and the electron without employing the reduced mass concept. It concludes that while an analytical solution is unlikely, a simplified Hartree-Fock variational approach may yield insights into the ground state. The conversation highlights the importance of considering relativistic effects and suggests that a large basis set is necessary due to the small magnitude of effects involved. Software recommendations for numerical solutions are sought but not provided in the discussion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Schrödinger equation and its application to quantum mechanics.
  • Familiarity with the concept of reduced mass in quantum systems.
  • Knowledge of Hartree-Fock methods in quantum chemistry.
  • Basic principles of relativistic quantum mechanics and their implications.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Hartree-Fock variational method for multi-particle systems.
  • Explore numerical software options such as Gaussian or Quantum ESPRESSO for quantum simulations.
  • Study relativistic corrections in quantum mechanics, including spin-orbit coupling and the Darwin term.
  • Investigate the implementation of basis sets in quantum mechanical calculations for improved accuracy.
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, computational chemists, and researchers interested in advanced quantum mechanics and numerical solutions for atomic systems.

akbmurugan
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
While solving the Schrödinger equation for Hydrogen atom, we use the reduced mass and get the wave functions of the electron. I like to get the wave functions of the nucleus as well as that of the electron. This may probably need to avoid using the reduced mass concept. Is this problem analytically solvable? If so, where can I find the solution? If it is not analytically solvable, where/how can I get the numerical solution? Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, first - realize that there's little point to this: Once you've taken into account the reduced-mass correction, the next correction (by order of size) would be taking into account relativistic effects, first the relativistic momentum of the electron, then spin-orbit coupling, the Darwin term, the Breit interaction, and finally vacuum fluctuations/QFT effects. Then the finite size of the nucleus comes into play! (at which point you're down at parts-per-million or so of the energy) So it's probably hard to find someone who's done this calculation, since with the Schrödinger equation, it's not going to give you any more accuracy.

But purely academically it might be fun to try to do.
I doubt there's an analytical solution. But if you just want the ground state, you could try a kind of simplified Hartree-Fock variational approach;

Ignore correlation and write your wave function as a product of nuclear and electronic functions. Write your hamiltonian (Tel + Tnuc + V) in polar coords. Using some set of basis functions, start with the ordinary hydrogen solution as a starting guess, use it to calculate the nuclear wave function, now minimize the electronic part and iterate until (hopefully) you reach self-consistency. (Although I don't feel convinced you would.. but I'm a bit too tired to think about it now. I may be wrong for some very obvious reason)

You'd probably need a large basis set since the effect is so small though. It's an idea anyhow.
 
Thank you for the suggestions. I have not numerically solved such problems. Can I get some suggestions on the software to use and some code for this purpose?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K