Feynman Hellman Theorem: dependence of E on [itex]\ell[/itex] Hydrogen

Click For Summary
The Feynman-Hellman theorem expresses the relationship between the energy E and the parameter λ in quantum systems, specifically for hydrogen. The discussion highlights the challenge of interpreting the derivative ∂n/∂ℓ, as traditionally, n is considered independent of ℓ due to the multiple possible n values for a given ℓ. However, if the eigenfunctions are restricted, n can be treated as a function of ℓ, leading to a clearer relationship where n = ℓ + c. The calculation of expectation values, such as ⟨1/r²⟩, becomes complex when considering non-integer values of ℓ, complicating the application of the theorem. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the need for careful consideration of eigenfunction dependencies in quantum mechanics.
MisterX
Messages
758
Reaction score
71
The theorem states
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \lambda} = \langle \psi \mid \frac{\partial H}{\partial \lambda} \mid \psi \rangle

Where \mid \psi \rangle is an eigenket of H.

An example (given on Wikipedia) is to find \langle \psi \mid \frac{1}{r^2} \mid \psi \rangle for a Hydrogen eigenstate using this method with \lambda = \ell. It is straightforward to differentiate H with respect to \ell. However the common expression for energy only depends n. In the Wikipedia article there is
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \ell} = \frac{\partial E}{\partial n}\frac{\partial n}{\partial \ell}.

But, how do we make sense of \frac{\partial n}{\partial \ell}. Don't we normally (when \ell is not varied continuously) think of n as being somewhat independent of \ell?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you provide a link to the wikipedia article?
 
Don't we normally (when ℓ is not varied continuously) think of n as being somewhat independent of ℓ?
Yes, in the basic theory of hydrogen atom, we usually do not think of ##n## as of a function of ##l##, because usually we consider all possible combinations of ##n,l##, and for given ##l##, we have many possible ##n = l +1, l+ 2, ...##, so obviusly ##n## is not a function of ##l##.

However, if we restrict the set of the eigenfunctions, we can regard ##n## as a function of ##l##.

In the mentioned application of the Hellmann-Feynman theorem, the argument runs probably as follows.

We have special operator ##\hat{H}_l## which depends on ##l## only. From this it follows that each its eigenfunctions ##\phi_{nl}## is a function of ##l##. The number ##n## with possible values ## l+1, l+2, ...## is introduced as a whole number indexing various different eigenfunctions for the given ##l##.

In the calculation of ##\langle \frac{1}{r^2}\rangle## for ##\phi_{nl}##, we deal with one eigenfunction ##\phi_{nl}## for given numbers ##n,l##. Given these two numbers, we can find exactly one natural number ##c > 0## such that ##n = l + c##. Now, from the set of all eigenfunctions ##\phi_{n'l'}##, let us choose the subset ##\phi_{l'+c,l'}##, in other words, we have ##n' = l'+ c##. Then we have ##\partial n'/\partial l' =1##.
 
  • Like
Likes MisterX
Another possibility would be that the degeneracy of eigenvalues with different l but same n is broken once non-integer values of l are considered. It is necessary to consider non-integer l to be able to take the derivatives. I fear a clean calculation of the expectation value of 1/r^2 via the HF theorem is much more complicated than a direct calculation.
In Wikipedia there is also a reference for this problem. Maybe you can check it out.

Edit: Thinking about it, this will probably amount to the same what Jano L. said, i.e. dn/dl=1 as n=l+c also holds for non-integer values of l.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
985
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K