Why should the quantum number m be less than equal to l.

sanalsprasad
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I was reading the following article regarding solution of wavefunction of hydrogen :
http://skisickness.com/2009/11/22/

To solve the angular part they gave the substitution of y = \sin \theta and then assumed that Y is a polynomial i.e. Y(y) = \sum b_n x^n and then arrived at the recursion formula :
b_{n-2} = - \frac{n^2 - m^2}{l(l+1) - (n-1)(n-2) }b_{n} , where l is maximum value of n for which b_n is non-zero.

Then they say that :
" There must be a minimum value of n; otherwise, the series will diverge at y=0. Given l, for the series to converge, it is necessary that |m|=l-2k, with k greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to l/2. For even or odd l, this series gives l+1 solutions. This solution gives the eigenfunctions with both odd or both even m and l. "

I did not understand why the series converges only for this particular condition. Is it something to do with starting with b_l and then finding b_{l-2} and then b_{l-4} and so on in terms of b_l.
Thanks for help!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't care to post the mathematical reasoning because the physical reason is easy to understand.

How can a projection of a vector on any arbitrary axis (angular momentum in the case) be larger than the magnitude of the vector?
 
sanalsprasad said:
I did not understand why the series converges only for this particular condition.

When you use that recursive formula to generate polynomials (so called Legendre polynomials), every term in the resulting polynomial has coefficient larger than 1, and the coefficients only grow when going to higher-power terms. There's no way how that kind of a series could converge unless it terminates at some point. And the series terminates only if m ≤ l (with that condition, all coefficients are zero after some term).
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top