B Schrödinger Equation for the fusion of Deuterium(2H) and a Proton(H)

Viridun
In fact I am not sure if this is the right place to ask such a question but I'm going to ask anyways, just tell me if I am in the wrong place.
So I doing a little experiment with the Schröndinger's equation, but the problem is I can't find a certain function.
You all know the Schrödingers equation has variable for a function V(x) in the differential equation.

Now i need a specific one I need the one for the fusion of Deuterium(2H) and a Proton(H), but I can't find it anywhere.

Can anyone help me ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The electron is just a charged particle in the electric field of the proton, so you need a spherical Coulomb potential. If that's not useful for you then you may as well stop trying and instead learn about electromagnetism :)
 
Gigaz said:
The electron is just a charged particle in the electric field of the proton, so you need a spherical Coulomb potential. If that's not useful for you then you may as well stop trying and instead learn about electromagnetism :)
I know that one, and I also know how the function of that one looks, my problem is that I don't know how to get this together with the function of the strong force.
 
Ah I see, I think I read something wrong, my apologies.
The functional form of the proton-proton or proton-neutron interaction could in principle be derived from QCD if you have a really good computer. I don't think that it is known, and it is also ultimately not important. The important quantities are interaction cross sections and energy eigenvalues. Sounds funny when you do something like Quantum mechanics I at university level. But a muffin tin potential, where you have a constant very low energy around the nucleus, a wall, and a Coulomb potential outside, that approach is as good as any other.
 
Gigaz said:
Ah I see, I think I read something wrong, my apologies.
The functional form of the proton-proton or proton-neutron interaction could in principle be derived from QCD if you have a really good computer. I don't think that it is known, and it is also ultimately not important. The important quantities are interaction cross sections and energy eigenvalues. Sounds funny when you do something like Quantum mechanics I at university level. But a muffin tin potential, where you have a constant very low energy around the nucleus, a wall, and a Coulomb potential outside, that approach is as good as any other.

I probably didn't express myself to well with english not being my mother language.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top