A What is the solution for two electrons on a sphere?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter bob012345
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles Sphere
bob012345
Gold Member
Messages
2,283
Reaction score
1,010
TL;DR Summary
Two Particles on a 3D Sphere.
The Quantum Mechanical solution for a particle on a sphere is well known. I'm looking for a treatment of two particles on a sphere where both particles are electrons. I assume it's analytically solvable. Of course, I am not expecting someone to actually solve it from scratch (unless you want to) but please point me to an existing solution or help me set up the problem. Later, I'll want to address and compare it to two particles in a spherical box. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bob012345 said:
I assume it's analytically solvable

Why?
 
Why? Well, because it's a constrained two body problem and not an unconstrained three body problem. At least I think so, otherwise please let me know. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
These references were disappointing as they went through much unnecessary complictions overgeneralizing and formalizing the problems. I'm still looking for a straightforward treatment. Perhaps from a graduate textbook if anyone has seen one. Thanks.
 
bob012345 said:
help me set up the problem. Later, I'll want to address and compare it to two particles in a spherical box.
Have you tried to write down the Hamiltonian for either of the problems? Where are you getting stuck?
 
TeethWhitener said:
Have you tried to write down the Hamiltonian for either of the problems? Where are you getting stuck?

That's one of my problems, setting up the Hamiltonian from scratch and to see if it's separable. That's why I'd like to see a textbook reference. The paper by Loos and Gill starts off ok but then quickly gets into Hartree-Fock methods which ruin it in terms of simplicity (for me that is...).
 
Last edited:
Can you write down the Hamiltonian for two non-interacting particles on a sphere?
 
TeethWhitener said:
Can you write down the Hamiltonian for two non-interacting particles on a sphere?
I think so, it would be the Helium Hamiltonian without Coulomb terms but with constant potential energy terms and no radial radial wavefunction, except a constant. But I want them to interact at least with the Coulomb term which would be a function of relative angle as in the Loos paper. That sound correct?
 
  • #10
bob012345 said:
I think so
So write it out and show us where you get stuck.

The reason I’m doing this is because it isn’t clear from your descriptions what, exactly, you’re having trouble with. If you can write out the Schrödinger equation for the problem but are having trouble understanding which terms make an analytical solution problematic, we can try to address that. If you can’t write down the Schrödinger equation for the problem, we can try to address that. Etc etc.
 
  • Like
Likes Spinnor and bob012345
  • #11
TeethWhitener said:
So write it out and show us where you get stuck.

The reason I’m doing this is because it isn’t clear from your descriptions what, exactly, you’re having trouble with. If you can write out the Schrödinger equation for the problem but are having trouble understanding which terms make an analytical solution problematic, we can try to address that. If you can’t write down the Schrödinger equation for the problem, we can try to address that. Etc etc.

I can't do LaTeX from my iPad (yet). But the Hamiltonian you requested for two non-interacting particles on a sphere should be just sum of two Hamiltonians for one particle say for particles called 1 and 2. The Hamiltonian is separable and the total wavefunction is the product of each particle wavefunction. Adding the Coulomb interaction would be the next step.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
bob012345 said:
Adding the Coulomb interaction would be the next step.

Which is not trivial.
 
  • #13
Vanadium 50 said:
Which is not trivial.
Absolutely not trivial! But I'll give it a try.
 
  • #14
bob012345 said:
the total wavefunction is the product of each particle wavefunction

Not if the particles are bosons or fermions. The wave function has to have the correct symmetry properties under particle exchange. You said electrons in the OP, which would be fermions, so the wave function would have to be unchanged except for a sign flip under particle exchange. A simple product of two one-particle wave functions will not have this property.
 
  • Like
Likes bob012345 and TeethWhitener
  • #15
PeterDonis said:
A simple product of two one-particle wave functions will not have this property.

True.

Getting a little deeper, the product of two one-particle wavefunctions will not capture the physics of the situation either. What is the wavefunction of one particle? It's uniform in solid angle, by symmetry. `And the other? Same thing. And the relation of one given the other? There isn't one in this case, and that's wrong - for spin-statistics reasons (as you said) and because of the interaction Hamiltonian.
 
  • Like
Likes bob012345
  • #16
I've thought about this some more.

1. There are only a half-dozen or so analytically solvable systems in QM. Even the helium atom is not one of these.
2. Consider the variables you would be using: φ and θ (or maybe cosθ ) for each electron, and an interaction term that's a whole mess of trig. Solvable? I am not sure it's even separable!
3. You want to do two things when writing down the Hamiltonian, and they may be at odds with each other. One is to write it in such a way as to ensure that the wavefunction is antisymmetric under electron exchange as well as to reflect the global φ symmetry, and the other is to write it so the whole mess of trig is as easy to work with as possible.

That said, is there anything we can say about the ground state?

Classically, the lowest energy state has the two electrons at antipodes, and the electrons moving as slowly as possible. Is this the same solution quantum mechanically? I'd like to think so, but I am beginning to suspect that it's not. If r is the 2nd electron's distance on the sphere from the first antipode, does r commute with the total Hamiltonian? Maybe...but probably not.
 
  • Like
Likes bob012345
  • #17
Well the Hamiltonian has a symmetry under the full rotation operator, so why not do perturbation theory off of the eigenstates of the total angular momentum operator. I really doubt there are any analytical solutions for this system, the potential looks terrible.
 
  • Like
Likes bob012345
  • #18
Vanadium 50 said:
True.

Getting a little deeper, the product of two one-particle wavefunctions will not capture the physics of the situation either. What is the wavefunction of one particle? It's uniform in solid angle, by symmetry. `And the other? Same thing. And the relation of one given the other? There isn't one in this case, and that's wrong - for spin-statistics reasons (as you said) and because of the interaction Hamiltonian.

I thought of mentioning exchange symmetry but didn't since I felt the very first step was literally non-interacting particles which I take to include exchange interactions also. I equate exchange interactions with spin (including spin 0). I'm assuming for the problem that spin of zero is different than non existence of spin. Also, only the ground state solution for one particle on a sphere is uniform. Excited states are the normalized Spherical Harmonics. If we include spin (and still no Coulomb) and they are bosons I can make the total wavefunction symmetric and for the original assumption of electrons, anti-symmetric. This includes both the spatial and spin parts. I believe that for the ground state in the two electron on a sphere case, since the spatial anti-symmetric wavefunction is zero, there is only the symmetric spatial part times the anti-symmetric spin function so it's a Singlet state. Again, this is including exchange symmetry but not Coulomb interaction so it's just for learning purposes.
 
  • #19
bob012345 said:
the very first step was literally non-interacting particles which I take to include exchange interactions also

This is not correct. Non-interacting particles are still either fermions or bosons.

bob012345 said:
I equate exchange interactions with spin (including spin 0).

That is not correct. Exchange interactions are not spin and don't work the same as spin.

bob012345 said:
I'm assuming for the problem that spin of zero is different than non existence of spin.

"Non existence of spin" is meaningless; there is no QM mathematical model that has that property.

bob012345 said:
for the ground state in the two electron on a sphere case, since the spatial anti-symmetric wavefunction is zero

Why do you think the spatial anti-symmetric wave function is zero?
 
  • #20
Vanadium 50 said:
I've thought about this some more.

1. There are only a half-dozen or so analytically solvable systems in QM. Even the helium atom is not one of these.
2. Consider the variables you would be using: φ and θ (or maybe cosθ ) for each electron, and an interaction term that's a whole mess of trig. Solvable? I am not sure it's even separable!
3. You want to do two things when writing down the Hamiltonian, and they may be at odds with each other. One is to write it in such a way as to ensure that the wavefunction is antisymmetric under electron exchange as well as to reflect the global φ symmetry, and the other is to write it so the whole mess of trig is as easy to work with as possible.

That said, is there anything we can say about the ground state?

Classically, the lowest energy state has the two electrons at antipodes, and the electrons moving as slowly as possible. Is this the same solution quantum mechanically? I'd like to think so, but I am beginning to suspect that it's not. If r is the 2nd electron's distance on the sphere from the first antipode, does r commute with the total Hamiltonian? Maybe...but probably not.
Regarding your point #2, I was thinking it was solvable because it boils down to a restricted two body problem but now I'm not sure. It may not be solvable unless the problem can be fully cast in terms of the relative separation on the sphere.
 
  • #21
PeterDonis said:
This is not correct. Non-interacting particles are still either fermions or bosons.
That is not correct. Exchange interactions are not spin and don't work the same as spin.
"Non existence of spin" is meaningless; there is no QM mathematical model that has that property.
Why do you think the spatial anti-symmetric wave function is zero?
Thanks for correcting my loose views regarding exchange symmetry and spin. I see exchange symmetries regards the broader concept of identical particles and is a larger and different concept than just spin. Perhaps I should have said non-treatment of spin for teaching purposes such as when they treated the Hydrogen atom solution in my undergrad QM class. I can see now I would construct the anti-symmetric wavefunction for the two particles on a sphere even if not considering spin but there's no need to not consider spin since what is an electron without spin? I think the spatial anti-symmetric ground state of the two electron particles on a sphere is zero because it's the difference of two identical constants.
 
  • #22
bob012345 said:
I think the spatial anti-symmetric ground state of the two electron particles on a sphere is zero because it's the difference of two identical constants.

What constants? Please write down the actual math.
 
  • #23
PeterDonis said:
What constants? Please write down the actual math.
The normalized ground state for one particle on sphere is the lowest Spherical Harmonic function 1/SQ[4 Pi] which is a constant. If I have two particles and I construct an anti-symmetric wavefunction from the individual ground states for the spatial part (no Coulomb), don't I get zero? How would you then define the spatial part of the ground state? Thanks. Here is my resource;

https://www.kau.edu.sa/GetFile.aspx?id=162289&fn=13 Sphere and H atom.pdf
 
  • #24
bob012345 said:
If I have two particles and I construct an anti-symmetric wavefunction from the individual ground states for the spatial part (no Coulomb), don't I get zero?

No, because the term "spatial" is misleading here. The spatial wave function of a two-particle system on a sphere is not two functions each on a 2-sphere; it is one function on a 4-dimensional space. An antisymmetric function on a 4-dimensional space is not the same as the difference of two identical functions on a 2-sphere.

This is basic quantum mechanics, and in an "A" level thread it should already be part of your background knowledge.
 
  • #25
This is quite an interesting problem as a simplified model of a multielectron atom... Anyone who's more familiar with this, does it make a significant difference in the qualitative features of the energy eigenfunctions, whether I define the electron-electron distance ##r## in the ##e^2 /4\pi\epsilon_0 r## term as the shortest path that stays on the sphere, or as the euclidean distance in the 3D space that the sphere is embedded in?
 
  • #26
hilbert2 said:
This is quite an interesting problem as a simplified model of a multielectron atom... Anyone who's more familiar with this, does it make a significant difference in the qualitative features of the energy eigenfunctions, whether I define the electron-electron distance ##r## in the ##e^2 /4\pi\epsilon_0 r## term as the shortest path that stays on the sphere, or as the euclidean distance in the 3D space that the sphere is embedded in?

That's an interesting thought. If we used the geodesic distance instead that could significantly simplify calculations, still not enough to make it exactly solvable but I think it would make perturbation terms very easy to calculate. You could probably exploit the rotational symmetry of the problem and "put" one of the spherical harmonics at the north pole, then the geodesic distance to the other harmonic is simply some multiple of the polar angle. That seems very do-able to arbitray orders in perturbation theory. However the functions you integrate over do need to be eigenstates of the total angular momentum operator so I don't know if that spoils it hm..
 
  • Like
Likes hilbert2
  • #27
PeterDonis said:
No, because the term "spatial" is misleading here. The spatial wave function of a two-particle system on a sphere is not two functions each on a 2-sphere; it is one function on a 4-dimensional space. An antisymmetric function on a 4-dimensional space is not the same as the difference of two identical functions on a 2-sphere.

This is basic quantum mechanics, and in an "A" level thread it should already be part of your background knowledge.
I disagree it's misleading as I'm getting that from the treatment of the Helium ground state in my old QM text. I used the "A" level because I think that's the level of the problem not because it describes my abilities as such but I'm doing my best. :)
 
  • #28
bob012345 said:
I disagree it's misleading as I'm getting that from the treatment of the Helium ground state in my old QM text.

Then please give a specific reference and show your work. So far you have not written a single bit of math in this thread. That's not a good sign for an "A" level discussion.

bob012345 said:
I used the "A" level because I think that's the level of the problem not because it describes my abilities as such

I agree it's the level of the problem, but if you don't have the requisite background then perhaps you should take the time to develop it before trying to tackle this problem.
 
  • #29
PeterDonis said:
Then please give a specific reference and show your work. So far you have not written a single bit of math in this thread. That's not a good sign for an "A" level discussion.
I agree it's the level of the problem, but if you don't have the requisite background then perhaps you should take the time to develop it before trying to tackle this problem.
We are so far discussing how to set up the problem and I've also been spending many hours in my books preparing my answers but I don't know how to do LaTeX yet. If I have to be an expert on solving this problem before I can ask about it here, I might not need to come here but I came here because I do need help. I sense your advice is just to become that expert first. But as I'm interacting here, I do feel I'm gaining confidence and learning. The ground state of two electrons on the sphere is discussed in the Loos paper but it's not crystal clear how they got there to me. You will have to give me time to put up my math if you insist that be done before I can get more help.
 
  • #31
bob012345 said:
If I have to be an expert on solving this problem before I can ask about it here,

Not an expert in solving this specific problem, but it's not clear that you have a general "A" level background in quantum mechanics. Without that you might not be able to get far on this specific problem no matter how much help we give you; it would amount to us just solving the problem and telling you the solution.
 
  • #32
bob012345 said:
You will have to give me time to put up my math

That's fine, nobody is under time pressure here. But if you are going to make claims like "the antisymmetric part of the two-particle spatial wave function is zero", you need to back them up with math.
 
  • #33
PeterDonis said:
Not an expert in solving this specific problem, but it's not clear that you have a general "A" level background in quantum mechanics. Without that you might not be able to get far on this specific problem no matter how much help we give you; it would amount to us just solving the problem and telling you the solution.
Please define exactly what an "A" level is. I've had a lot of QM at the University of Illinois.
 
  • #35
TeethWhitener said:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3641If anyone’s interested in the state of the problem.

So as one would expect, the groundstate does correspond to the classical antipodal configuration.
 

Attachments

  • 34534444534.JPG
    34534444534.JPG
    34.1 KB · Views: 306
  • Like
Likes bob012345
  • #36
Could it be expected that deforming the sphere to an ellipsoid of revolution would cause splitting of energy levels or only shift the existing ones?

Edit: it would wreck the same symmetry that's with the ##p_x ,p_y ,p_z## orbitals of a hydrogen atom, but the answer is not immediately clear to me.
 
  • #37
PeterDonis said:
That's fine, nobody is under time pressure here. But if you are going to make claims like "the antisymmetric part of the two-particle spatial wave function is zero", you need to back them up with math.

That's fine. I'm working on the math now. Then I need to figure out how to show you since LaTeX doesn't seem to work from my iPad. Maybe I can attach a file with my work. That claim was merely my thoughts at the time and I hope to either defend it of refute it as work on the problem develops. Thanks to all participating in this thread!
 
Last edited:
  • #38
bob012345 said:
LaTeX doesn't seem to work from my iPad

You can just type the LaTeX directly into a post; it's just text characters. I don't see how it would work any differently from typing any other characters.

bob012345 said:
Maybe I can attach a file with my work

That's not in line with PF policy; we need to see the math entered directly into the post so we can quote it when we reply.
 
  • #39
HomogenousCow said:
So as one would expect, the groundstate does correspond to the classical antipodal configuration.
Thank you very much for finding this!
 
  • #40
PeterDonis said:
You can just type the LaTeX directly into a post; it's just text characters. I don't see how it would work any differently from typing any other characters.
That's not in line with PF policy; we need to see the math entered directly into the post so we can quote it when we reply.
"Note: the PF apps for iOS (iPhone, iPad) and Android can only display raw LaTeX code as plain text. You must use PF via a web browser in order to see properly-rendered equations."

Thanks. That makes it a little harder for me but not impossible.
 
  • #41
bob012345 said:
Thanks. That makes it a little harder for me but not impossible.
So many things work better on the iPad in Safari than in the app that I've just never used the app there.
 
  • #42
bob012345 said:
the PF apps for iOS (iPhone, iPad) and Android can only display raw LaTeX code as plain text

Aren't the apps outdated now that PF has upgraded to a new version of the forum software? The Android app, at least, no longer works for me, it tells me to use the website and then shuts down.
 
  • #43
HomogenousCow said:
the groundstate does correspond to the classical antipodal configuration.

Well, kind of. It's not exact. I didn't really expect it to be, but I don't think anything precludes it.
 
  • #44
hilbert2 said:
Could it be expected that deforming the sphere to an ellipsoid of revolution would cause splitting of energy levels or only shift the existing ones?

Edit: it would wreck the same symmetry that's with the ##p_x ,p_y ,p_z## orbitals of a hydrogen atom, but the answer is not immediately clear to me.

Do you mean like the n-l degeneracies in the hydrogen atom? That would definitely be broken if it existed, but this system doesn't have any. It does have the usual magnetic degeneracies.
 
  • #45
Vanadium 50 said:
Well, kind of. It's not exact. I didn't really expect it to be, but I don't think anything precludes it.

How could it be exact?
 
  • #46
HomogenousCow said:
How could it be exact?

Nothing in QM prohibits this. Think about the case where you have a stick holding the two charges, still both constrained to move on the surface of the sphere, a diameter apart. QM can certainly calculate this motion, so it's not a prohibited solution. As I said earlier, the requirement is that the distance between the second charge and the antipode commute with the Hamiltonian, which at the time seemed unlikely, and downthread we know that it doesn't. But the fact that the relationship isn't exact doesn't mean it can't be.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
HomogenousCow said:
You could probably exploit the rotational symmetry of the problem and "put" one of the spherical harmonics at the north pole

You probably could, but this also means you don't have a well-defined z-axis to quantize around. I suspect that it makes things worse instead of better: I would certain want to keep the Ylm's if I could.
 
  • #48
I'm having a problem normalizing a two electron wavefunction on a unit sphere. The normalized solutions for the one electron problem are the ##Y_\ell^m (\theta, \varphi)##. This is a prelude to the problem of this thread.

We construct the anti-symmetric wavefunction from the ##\Phi_a(\vec r_i)## representing the ##Y_\ell^m (\theta_i, \varphi_i)## for a set of quantum numbers ##{\ell, m}## labeled ##a## or ##b## and coordinate set ##i## labeled 1 or 2;
$$\Psi_A(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\Phi_a(\vec r_1) \Phi_b(\vec r_2) + \Phi_b(\vec r_1) \Phi_a(\vec r_2)][singlet>$$
##Y_{0}^{0} (\theta_1, \varphi_1) = {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} }## for all coordinate sets and quantum number sets we can write the ground state wavefunction.;
$$\Psi_A(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[ {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} } {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} }+ {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi}} {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} }][singlet>$$

Which gives us;

$$\Psi_A= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[ {1\over 2{\pi}}][singlet>$$

If properly normalized, the probability over all space which is the probability of finding two particles on the sphere, should be 1 but I get 2.

$$<\Psi^{\ast}|\Psi>=\iint( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[ {1\over 2{\pi}}])^2dA_1dA_2= (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[ {1\over 2{\pi}}])^2(4\pi)^2=2$$

I thought for any properly constructed wavefunction this should be 1. So I wonder if it's the product wavefunction ##\Phi_a(\vec r_1) \Phi_b(\vec r_2) ## that should be normalized when constructing the anti-symmetric wavefunction? What else could be the issue? I ask because all my texts discuss the full symmetric spatial part is necessary for the ground state of Helium but don't actually use it but do use the product wavefunction ##\Phi_a(\vec r_1) \Phi_b(\vec r_2) ##. I worked through the Helium atom normalization with the full symmetric wavefunction and got 2 also. The full symmetric spatial wavefunction does normalize with a factor of ##{1\over 2}## rather than ##{1\over \sqrt 2}##.Thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Ok, now I see what's happening and why... The formal structure of symmetrization for the spatial part goes as this;$$\Psi(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\Phi_a(\vec r_1) \Phi_b(\vec r_2) \pm \Phi_b(\vec r_1) \Phi_a(\vec r_2)]$$

Where ##{a,b}## represent a set of quantum numbers and coordinate sets are labeled ##{1, 2}## and the Hamiltonian was separable.;

In the general case, the ##\Phi_j(\vec{r}_i)## represents not just normalized one electron wavefunctions but ##orthogonal## ones. When the quantum numbers are the same, the states are not orthogonal and thus are special cases. This is why all the texts treat the ground state of Helium as a special case because both electrons are in the same state and thus are not orthogonal. Thus, the normalization factor for the full symmetricized wavefunction is ##1\over2## which gives the same result as the product of two single electron functions ##\Phi_a(\vec r_1) \Phi_b(\vec r_2) ## but doubles the work. Now I can proceed to the main problem.
 
  • #50
Now, on to the main problem of two electrons on a sphere. I start basic and then will build on and explore the solutions in follow up posts.

We start the problem with the Schrödinger equation;$$\hat H \Psi = E \Psi $$

The Hamiltonian for a particle on a sphere with no potential is;

$$\hat H = - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2$$

Which gives for no radial function for fixed ##r##;

$$\hat H =- \frac{\hbar^2}{2mr^2} \left [ {1 \over \sin \theta} {\partial \over \partial \theta} \left ( \sin \theta {\partial \over \partial \theta} \right ) + {1 \over {\sin^2 \theta}} {\partial^2 \over \partial \varphi^2} \right]$$This leads to the Eigenvalue equation written with the presumptive solutions, the spherical harmonics ##Y_\ell^m (\theta, \varphi )##;

$$\hat H Y_\ell^m (\theta, \varphi ) = \frac{\hbar^2}{2mr^2} \ell(\ell+1) Y_\ell^m (\theta, \varphi )$$

Which gives the energy Eigenvalues where ##m## is the mass.;

$$ E_\ell = {\hbar^2 \over 2mr^2} \ell \left (\ell+1\right) ~~~ \ell=0,1,\dots$$

The lowest normalized angular Eigenfunction is ##~~~ Y_{0}^{0}(\theta,\varphi)={1\over \sqrt{4\pi} R}## where ##R## is fixed which means a constant probability density over the sphere. Interestingly, the ground state energy is zero for ##\ell=0## but the wavefunction is not. Rather than contradict the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we can consider that the momentum and position of the particle are completely uncertain in the ground state. It is also instructive to choose the sphere radius to be equal to the Bohr radius ##a_0## which gives us after a little algebra;

$$ E_\ell = {e^2 \over 2 a_0} \ell \left (\ell+1\right) ~~~ \ell=0,1,\dots$$

Starting with the full Helium Hamiltonian which we will reduce to that of 2-Spherium; I'll leave off ##r## and put it in at the end for convenience.

$$\hat H(\vec{r}_1,\, \vec{r}_2) = - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} (\nabla^2_1 + \nabla^2_2) - \frac{2 e^2}{r_1} - \frac{2e^2}{r_2} + \frac{e^2}{r_{12}} $$

Since the values of ##r## is fixed, we actually have a 4 dimensional space over the surface and 6 is we consider the actual volume of the spheres. We could add a positive ##Z = 2## charge fixed in the center of the sphere to create constant potential terms ##- \frac{2e^2}{a_0}## but that just adds a constant to the energy and is unnecessary. So for ##unperturbed## 2-Spherium (particles on a 2 dimensional sphere in 3 dimensional space) we are left with the Hamiltonian;

$$\hat H(\vec{r}_1,\, \vec{r}_2) = - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} (\nabla^2_1 + \nabla^2_2) $$ where the vectors represent a fixed radius and variable angles ## \theta, \varphi ##.

This is separable and the solutions for each separate Hamiltonian are the the spherical harmonics ##Y_\ell^m (\theta, \varphi )## from which we can construct the total wavefunction which has to be anti-symmetric for the two electrons;

$$ \psi^{(total)}_\pm(\vec{r}_1, \vec{r}_2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [\psi_{l_1,m_1}(\vec{r}_1) \psi_{l_2,m_2}(\vec{r}_2) \pm \psi_{l_2,m_2}(\vec{r}_1) \psi_{l_1,m_1}(\vec{r}_2)][S_{1,2}>$$

Where ##[S_{1,2}>## equals for the minus sign;
$$
\left.\begin{cases}
|1,1\rangle & =\;\uparrow\uparrow\\
|1,0\rangle & =\;(\uparrow\downarrow + \downarrow\uparrow)/\sqrt2\\
|1,-1\rangle & =\;\downarrow\downarrow
\end{cases}\right\}\quad s=1\quad\mathrm{(triplet)}
$$
And ##[S_{1,2}>## equals for the plus sign;$$
\left.\begin{cases}
|0,0\rangle & =\;(\uparrow\downarrow - \downarrow\uparrow)/\sqrt2\\
\end{cases}\right\}\quad s=0\quad\mathrm{(singlet)}
$$

For the spatial part we let ##\Phi_a(\vec r_i)## represent the ##Y_\ell^m (\theta_i, \varphi_i)## for a set of quantum numbers ##{\ell, m}## labeled ##a## or ##b## and coordinate set ##i## labeled 1 or 2;
$$\Psi_S(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\Phi_a(\vec r_1) \Phi_b(\vec r_2) + \Phi_b(\vec r_1) \Phi_a(\vec r_2)]$$
$$\Psi_A(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\Phi_a(\vec r_1) \Phi_b(\vec r_2) - \Phi_b(\vec r_1) \Phi_a(\vec r_2)]$$

Now the ground state ##Y_{0}^{0} (\theta_1, \varphi_1) = {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} }## is a special case where the wavefunctions are not orthogonal and we can write the possible ground state wavefunctions.;
$$\Psi_S(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)[Spin_A>= \frac{1}{{2}}[ {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} } {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} }+ {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi}} {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} }][singlet>$$$$\Psi_A(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)[Spin_S>= \frac{1}{{2}}[ {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} } {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} }- {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi}} {1\over 2\sqrt{\pi} }][triplet>$$

Which gives us;

$$\Psi_S(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)[Spin_A>= \frac{1}{{2}}[ {1\over 2{\pi}}][singlet>$$
$$\Psi_A(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)[Spin_S>= \frac{1}{{2}}[0][triplet>$$

Leaving the ground state of the ## unperturbed ## Hamiltonian as;
$$\Psi_{GROUND}=\Psi_S(\vec r_1,\vec r_2)[Spin_A>= {1\over {4 {\pi}{R}^2}}[{1\over \sqrt{2} }(\uparrow\downarrow - \downarrow\uparrow)>$$The total energy is zero for the ground state up to an arbitrary fixed potential;

$$ E_{total} = {\hbar^2 \over {2 m R^2}} [ \ell_1 \left (\ell_1+1\right) + \ell_2 \left (\ell_2+1\right)]=0~~~ \ell_{1,2}=0$$

Interestingly, according to Loos and Gill* the ground state wavefunction with the Coulomb interaction in the Restricted Hartree-Fock formulation is the same however the energy is changed by the interaction with the addition of a term ##e^2\over R##.Next, I'll look at some excited states before attempting to add the interaction term to resolve the degenerate states.

* PHYSICAL REVIEW A 79, 062517 (2009)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top