Why does the Schrödinger equation work so well for the hydrogen atom despite the relativistic boundary at the nucleus?Why are S-state solutions of Dirac equation for hydrogen atom allowed to be unbounded?Choice of the z-axis in the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atomWhy do we not require higher derivatives to match at boundary when solving the Schrödinger equation in a given potential?Why are S-state solutions of Dirac equation for hydrogen atom allowed to be unbounded?Why can't the Schrödinger equation be solved exactly for multi-electron atoms? Does some solution exist even in principle?Why does the Dirac equation work for the hydrogen atom?

Visa Family Permit

If the mass of the Earth is decreasing by sending debris in space, does its angular momentum also decrease?

I have found ports on my Samsung smart tv running a display service. What can I do with it?

What is that ceiling compartment of a Boeing 737?

Are intrusions within a foreign embassy considered an act of war?

How to modify a string without altering its text properties

In windows systems, is renaming files functionally similar to deleting them?

Is declining an undergraduate award which causes me discomfort appropriate?

What could be the physiological mechanism for a biological Geiger counter?

I found a password with hashcat but it doesn't work

Negation of a verb in the "passé Composé" and used with a "COI"

Why is it 出差去 and not 去出差?

How is linear momentum conserved in circular motion?

What is this word in a sample of blackletter script?

Bent arrow under a node

Would a 7805 5 V regulator drain a 9 V battery?

Make symbols atomic, without losing their type

Why was New Asgard established at this place?

What kind of chart is this?

Kelvin type connection

How to make all magic-casting innate, but still rare?

I just entered the USA without passport control at Atlanta airport

"Correct me if I'm wrong"

How can I prevent a user from copying files on another hard drive?



Why does the Schrödinger equation work so well for the hydrogen atom despite the relativistic boundary at the nucleus?


Why are S-state solutions of Dirac equation for hydrogen atom allowed to be unbounded?Choice of the z-axis in the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atomWhy do we not require higher derivatives to match at boundary when solving the Schrödinger equation in a given potential?Why are S-state solutions of Dirac equation for hydrogen atom allowed to be unbounded?Why can't the Schrödinger equation be solved exactly for multi-electron atoms? Does some solution exist even in principle?Why does the Dirac equation work for the hydrogen atom?













31












$begingroup$


I have been taught that the boundary conditions are just as important as the differential equation itself when solving real, physical problems.



When the Schrödinger equation is applied to the idealized hydrogen atom it is separable and boundary conditions are applied to the radial component. I am worried about the $r=0$ boundary near the nucleus. Near the proton, the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic and looking at the Schrödinger equation itself for how this boundary should behave seems dangerous because its kinetic energy term is only a non-relativistic approximation.



Is there any physical intuition, or any math, that I can look at that should make me comfortable with the boundary condition in this region?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    31












    $begingroup$


    I have been taught that the boundary conditions are just as important as the differential equation itself when solving real, physical problems.



    When the Schrödinger equation is applied to the idealized hydrogen atom it is separable and boundary conditions are applied to the radial component. I am worried about the $r=0$ boundary near the nucleus. Near the proton, the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic and looking at the Schrödinger equation itself for how this boundary should behave seems dangerous because its kinetic energy term is only a non-relativistic approximation.



    Is there any physical intuition, or any math, that I can look at that should make me comfortable with the boundary condition in this region?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      31












      31








      31


      10



      $begingroup$


      I have been taught that the boundary conditions are just as important as the differential equation itself when solving real, physical problems.



      When the Schrödinger equation is applied to the idealized hydrogen atom it is separable and boundary conditions are applied to the radial component. I am worried about the $r=0$ boundary near the nucleus. Near the proton, the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic and looking at the Schrödinger equation itself for how this boundary should behave seems dangerous because its kinetic energy term is only a non-relativistic approximation.



      Is there any physical intuition, or any math, that I can look at that should make me comfortable with the boundary condition in this region?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I have been taught that the boundary conditions are just as important as the differential equation itself when solving real, physical problems.



      When the Schrödinger equation is applied to the idealized hydrogen atom it is separable and boundary conditions are applied to the radial component. I am worried about the $r=0$ boundary near the nucleus. Near the proton, the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic and looking at the Schrödinger equation itself for how this boundary should behave seems dangerous because its kinetic energy term is only a non-relativistic approximation.



      Is there any physical intuition, or any math, that I can look at that should make me comfortable with the boundary condition in this region?







      quantum-mechanics schroedinger-equation coordinate-systems boundary-conditions singularities






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jun 3 at 10:51









      Peter Mortensen

      1,97711424




      1,97711424










      asked Jun 1 at 15:23









      Paul YoungPaul Young

      2,347826




      2,347826




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          20












          $begingroup$

          In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.



          So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            So, imagine that I take a numerical approach to solving the radial differential equation with $l=0$. I will "shoot" from $r=infty$ inwards at various energy levels seeking the several eigenvalues for the s orbitals. If there is no boundary condition at $r=0$ then how do I know which energy levels are solutions?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:43







          • 8




            $begingroup$
            Hint: trivially detectable for gold. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics yields a grey gold not a yellow gold.
            $endgroup$
            – Joshua
            Jun 2 at 18:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung try taking the limit of $varepsilonto0$ with potential being $frac1sqrtr^2+varepsilon^2$ instead of the usual $1/r$. This will give you the result without imposing a special boundary condition. See also this question of mine and my self-answer there.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 2 at 20:22






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung I'm not sure what you're really asking: in the second paragraph of your OP you're speaking about kinetic energy operator being a non-relativistic approximation, which is irrelevant to boundary conditions (to approximate a bit closer you would use a higher order approximation of $$T=sqrtm^2c^4+p^2c^2-mc^2=fracp^22m-fracp^48m^3c^2+fracp^616m^5c^4+...,$$ not change a boundary condition) and in the last paragraph you're asking about the boundary condition at $r=0$, which seems to be addressed by my link in the previous comment.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 3 at 5:03







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            What I think @PaulYoung is getting at (and which I agree with) is that the statement "there is no constraint on $R(r)$ or $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$." The wavefunction has to be finite as $r to 0$. This effectively acts as a boundary condition for the radial ODE, since most solutions to the radial ODE are not finite at the origin.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael Seifert
            Jun 3 at 11:40


















          16












          $begingroup$

          Good question. Your claim that




          near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic




          is not as straightforward as it might seem. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals



          $$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^ 2.$$



          So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).



          The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar^2 |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)



          But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I understand from this that the electron's average or "expected" kinetic energy is not relativistic. However, the Schrödinger equation looks "local" to me and I am kinda thinking it does seem reasonable to think about it having a value at every point. This is what makes the wave function "wigglier" near the nucleus, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:37






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Whether it's wigglier near the nucleus depends on the orbital - for some choices of $n$ and $l$, the wave function is flat at the nucleus. Anyway, how do you propose to covert the kinetic energy density given by the wave function's gradient to an actually kinetic energy, which will tell you whether the electron is relativistic?
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 17:45










          • $begingroup$
            I propose to locally apply the momentum operator and divide the result by the rest mass and compare it to the speed of light
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 18:12






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            If you do that then the units don't work out. That's what I keep trying to tell you; the momentum operator only returns a quantity with the units of momentum if you integrate it over space. (Also, del is "nabla" in TeX.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung The physical significance of that ratio isn't clear to me. It would be very large at any location where the electron is very unlikely to be, and I don't see why that would correspond to the kinetic energy "at" that location. I just don't think there's any natural local way to define the kinetic energy "at" a location within the setup of nonrelativistic QM. (In the QFT setting, you can talk about the energy-momentum tensor.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 3 at 17:36


















          8












          $begingroup$

          The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location. Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.



          There isn't any relativistic boundary condition, because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.



          Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 16:15










          • $begingroup$
            But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:03










          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:09











          • $begingroup$
            the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:10











          • $begingroup$
            challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:37


















          6












          $begingroup$

          The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.



          As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I will check out the reference texts. Schiff's, in particular, sounds like there are some comments I have never seen.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:48











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483702%2fwhy-does-the-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-equation-work-so-well-for-the-hydrogen-atom-despite-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          20












          $begingroup$

          In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.



          So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            So, imagine that I take a numerical approach to solving the radial differential equation with $l=0$. I will "shoot" from $r=infty$ inwards at various energy levels seeking the several eigenvalues for the s orbitals. If there is no boundary condition at $r=0$ then how do I know which energy levels are solutions?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:43







          • 8




            $begingroup$
            Hint: trivially detectable for gold. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics yields a grey gold not a yellow gold.
            $endgroup$
            – Joshua
            Jun 2 at 18:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung try taking the limit of $varepsilonto0$ with potential being $frac1sqrtr^2+varepsilon^2$ instead of the usual $1/r$. This will give you the result without imposing a special boundary condition. See also this question of mine and my self-answer there.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 2 at 20:22






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung I'm not sure what you're really asking: in the second paragraph of your OP you're speaking about kinetic energy operator being a non-relativistic approximation, which is irrelevant to boundary conditions (to approximate a bit closer you would use a higher order approximation of $$T=sqrtm^2c^4+p^2c^2-mc^2=fracp^22m-fracp^48m^3c^2+fracp^616m^5c^4+...,$$ not change a boundary condition) and in the last paragraph you're asking about the boundary condition at $r=0$, which seems to be addressed by my link in the previous comment.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 3 at 5:03







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            What I think @PaulYoung is getting at (and which I agree with) is that the statement "there is no constraint on $R(r)$ or $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$." The wavefunction has to be finite as $r to 0$. This effectively acts as a boundary condition for the radial ODE, since most solutions to the radial ODE are not finite at the origin.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael Seifert
            Jun 3 at 11:40















          20












          $begingroup$

          In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.



          So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            So, imagine that I take a numerical approach to solving the radial differential equation with $l=0$. I will "shoot" from $r=infty$ inwards at various energy levels seeking the several eigenvalues for the s orbitals. If there is no boundary condition at $r=0$ then how do I know which energy levels are solutions?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:43







          • 8




            $begingroup$
            Hint: trivially detectable for gold. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics yields a grey gold not a yellow gold.
            $endgroup$
            – Joshua
            Jun 2 at 18:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung try taking the limit of $varepsilonto0$ with potential being $frac1sqrtr^2+varepsilon^2$ instead of the usual $1/r$. This will give you the result without imposing a special boundary condition. See also this question of mine and my self-answer there.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 2 at 20:22






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung I'm not sure what you're really asking: in the second paragraph of your OP you're speaking about kinetic energy operator being a non-relativistic approximation, which is irrelevant to boundary conditions (to approximate a bit closer you would use a higher order approximation of $$T=sqrtm^2c^4+p^2c^2-mc^2=fracp^22m-fracp^48m^3c^2+fracp^616m^5c^4+...,$$ not change a boundary condition) and in the last paragraph you're asking about the boundary condition at $r=0$, which seems to be addressed by my link in the previous comment.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 3 at 5:03







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            What I think @PaulYoung is getting at (and which I agree with) is that the statement "there is no constraint on $R(r)$ or $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$." The wavefunction has to be finite as $r to 0$. This effectively acts as a boundary condition for the radial ODE, since most solutions to the radial ODE are not finite at the origin.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael Seifert
            Jun 3 at 11:40













          20












          20








          20





          $begingroup$

          In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.



          So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.



          So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jun 1 at 16:32









          RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow

          3,818823




          3,818823











          • $begingroup$
            So, imagine that I take a numerical approach to solving the radial differential equation with $l=0$. I will "shoot" from $r=infty$ inwards at various energy levels seeking the several eigenvalues for the s orbitals. If there is no boundary condition at $r=0$ then how do I know which energy levels are solutions?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:43







          • 8




            $begingroup$
            Hint: trivially detectable for gold. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics yields a grey gold not a yellow gold.
            $endgroup$
            – Joshua
            Jun 2 at 18:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung try taking the limit of $varepsilonto0$ with potential being $frac1sqrtr^2+varepsilon^2$ instead of the usual $1/r$. This will give you the result without imposing a special boundary condition. See also this question of mine and my self-answer there.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 2 at 20:22






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung I'm not sure what you're really asking: in the second paragraph of your OP you're speaking about kinetic energy operator being a non-relativistic approximation, which is irrelevant to boundary conditions (to approximate a bit closer you would use a higher order approximation of $$T=sqrtm^2c^4+p^2c^2-mc^2=fracp^22m-fracp^48m^3c^2+fracp^616m^5c^4+...,$$ not change a boundary condition) and in the last paragraph you're asking about the boundary condition at $r=0$, which seems to be addressed by my link in the previous comment.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 3 at 5:03







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            What I think @PaulYoung is getting at (and which I agree with) is that the statement "there is no constraint on $R(r)$ or $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$." The wavefunction has to be finite as $r to 0$. This effectively acts as a boundary condition for the radial ODE, since most solutions to the radial ODE are not finite at the origin.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael Seifert
            Jun 3 at 11:40
















          • $begingroup$
            So, imagine that I take a numerical approach to solving the radial differential equation with $l=0$. I will "shoot" from $r=infty$ inwards at various energy levels seeking the several eigenvalues for the s orbitals. If there is no boundary condition at $r=0$ then how do I know which energy levels are solutions?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:43







          • 8




            $begingroup$
            Hint: trivially detectable for gold. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics yields a grey gold not a yellow gold.
            $endgroup$
            – Joshua
            Jun 2 at 18:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung try taking the limit of $varepsilonto0$ with potential being $frac1sqrtr^2+varepsilon^2$ instead of the usual $1/r$. This will give you the result without imposing a special boundary condition. See also this question of mine and my self-answer there.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 2 at 20:22






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung I'm not sure what you're really asking: in the second paragraph of your OP you're speaking about kinetic energy operator being a non-relativistic approximation, which is irrelevant to boundary conditions (to approximate a bit closer you would use a higher order approximation of $$T=sqrtm^2c^4+p^2c^2-mc^2=fracp^22m-fracp^48m^3c^2+fracp^616m^5c^4+...,$$ not change a boundary condition) and in the last paragraph you're asking about the boundary condition at $r=0$, which seems to be addressed by my link in the previous comment.
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            Jun 3 at 5:03







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            What I think @PaulYoung is getting at (and which I agree with) is that the statement "there is no constraint on $R(r)$ or $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$." The wavefunction has to be finite as $r to 0$. This effectively acts as a boundary condition for the radial ODE, since most solutions to the radial ODE are not finite at the origin.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael Seifert
            Jun 3 at 11:40















          $begingroup$
          So, imagine that I take a numerical approach to solving the radial differential equation with $l=0$. I will "shoot" from $r=infty$ inwards at various energy levels seeking the several eigenvalues for the s orbitals. If there is no boundary condition at $r=0$ then how do I know which energy levels are solutions?
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 2 at 14:43





          $begingroup$
          So, imagine that I take a numerical approach to solving the radial differential equation with $l=0$. I will "shoot" from $r=infty$ inwards at various energy levels seeking the several eigenvalues for the s orbitals. If there is no boundary condition at $r=0$ then how do I know which energy levels are solutions?
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 2 at 14:43





          8




          8




          $begingroup$
          Hint: trivially detectable for gold. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics yields a grey gold not a yellow gold.
          $endgroup$
          – Joshua
          Jun 2 at 18:09




          $begingroup$
          Hint: trivially detectable for gold. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics yields a grey gold not a yellow gold.
          $endgroup$
          – Joshua
          Jun 2 at 18:09




          3




          3




          $begingroup$
          @PaulYoung try taking the limit of $varepsilonto0$ with potential being $frac1sqrtr^2+varepsilon^2$ instead of the usual $1/r$. This will give you the result without imposing a special boundary condition. See also this question of mine and my self-answer there.
          $endgroup$
          – Ruslan
          Jun 2 at 20:22




          $begingroup$
          @PaulYoung try taking the limit of $varepsilonto0$ with potential being $frac1sqrtr^2+varepsilon^2$ instead of the usual $1/r$. This will give you the result without imposing a special boundary condition. See also this question of mine and my self-answer there.
          $endgroup$
          – Ruslan
          Jun 2 at 20:22




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @PaulYoung I'm not sure what you're really asking: in the second paragraph of your OP you're speaking about kinetic energy operator being a non-relativistic approximation, which is irrelevant to boundary conditions (to approximate a bit closer you would use a higher order approximation of $$T=sqrtm^2c^4+p^2c^2-mc^2=fracp^22m-fracp^48m^3c^2+fracp^616m^5c^4+...,$$ not change a boundary condition) and in the last paragraph you're asking about the boundary condition at $r=0$, which seems to be addressed by my link in the previous comment.
          $endgroup$
          – Ruslan
          Jun 3 at 5:03





          $begingroup$
          @PaulYoung I'm not sure what you're really asking: in the second paragraph of your OP you're speaking about kinetic energy operator being a non-relativistic approximation, which is irrelevant to boundary conditions (to approximate a bit closer you would use a higher order approximation of $$T=sqrtm^2c^4+p^2c^2-mc^2=fracp^22m-fracp^48m^3c^2+fracp^616m^5c^4+...,$$ not change a boundary condition) and in the last paragraph you're asking about the boundary condition at $r=0$, which seems to be addressed by my link in the previous comment.
          $endgroup$
          – Ruslan
          Jun 3 at 5:03





          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          What I think @PaulYoung is getting at (and which I agree with) is that the statement "there is no constraint on $R(r)$ or $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$." The wavefunction has to be finite as $r to 0$. This effectively acts as a boundary condition for the radial ODE, since most solutions to the radial ODE are not finite at the origin.
          $endgroup$
          – Michael Seifert
          Jun 3 at 11:40




          $begingroup$
          What I think @PaulYoung is getting at (and which I agree with) is that the statement "there is no constraint on $R(r)$ or $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$." The wavefunction has to be finite as $r to 0$. This effectively acts as a boundary condition for the radial ODE, since most solutions to the radial ODE are not finite at the origin.
          $endgroup$
          – Michael Seifert
          Jun 3 at 11:40











          16












          $begingroup$

          Good question. Your claim that




          near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic




          is not as straightforward as it might seem. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals



          $$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^ 2.$$



          So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).



          The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar^2 |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)



          But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I understand from this that the electron's average or "expected" kinetic energy is not relativistic. However, the Schrödinger equation looks "local" to me and I am kinda thinking it does seem reasonable to think about it having a value at every point. This is what makes the wave function "wigglier" near the nucleus, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:37






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Whether it's wigglier near the nucleus depends on the orbital - for some choices of $n$ and $l$, the wave function is flat at the nucleus. Anyway, how do you propose to covert the kinetic energy density given by the wave function's gradient to an actually kinetic energy, which will tell you whether the electron is relativistic?
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 17:45










          • $begingroup$
            I propose to locally apply the momentum operator and divide the result by the rest mass and compare it to the speed of light
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 18:12






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            If you do that then the units don't work out. That's what I keep trying to tell you; the momentum operator only returns a quantity with the units of momentum if you integrate it over space. (Also, del is "nabla" in TeX.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung The physical significance of that ratio isn't clear to me. It would be very large at any location where the electron is very unlikely to be, and I don't see why that would correspond to the kinetic energy "at" that location. I just don't think there's any natural local way to define the kinetic energy "at" a location within the setup of nonrelativistic QM. (In the QFT setting, you can talk about the energy-momentum tensor.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 3 at 17:36















          16












          $begingroup$

          Good question. Your claim that




          near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic




          is not as straightforward as it might seem. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals



          $$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^ 2.$$



          So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).



          The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar^2 |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)



          But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I understand from this that the electron's average or "expected" kinetic energy is not relativistic. However, the Schrödinger equation looks "local" to me and I am kinda thinking it does seem reasonable to think about it having a value at every point. This is what makes the wave function "wigglier" near the nucleus, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:37






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Whether it's wigglier near the nucleus depends on the orbital - for some choices of $n$ and $l$, the wave function is flat at the nucleus. Anyway, how do you propose to covert the kinetic energy density given by the wave function's gradient to an actually kinetic energy, which will tell you whether the electron is relativistic?
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 17:45










          • $begingroup$
            I propose to locally apply the momentum operator and divide the result by the rest mass and compare it to the speed of light
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 18:12






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            If you do that then the units don't work out. That's what I keep trying to tell you; the momentum operator only returns a quantity with the units of momentum if you integrate it over space. (Also, del is "nabla" in TeX.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung The physical significance of that ratio isn't clear to me. It would be very large at any location where the electron is very unlikely to be, and I don't see why that would correspond to the kinetic energy "at" that location. I just don't think there's any natural local way to define the kinetic energy "at" a location within the setup of nonrelativistic QM. (In the QFT setting, you can talk about the energy-momentum tensor.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 3 at 17:36













          16












          16








          16





          $begingroup$

          Good question. Your claim that




          near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic




          is not as straightforward as it might seem. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals



          $$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^ 2.$$



          So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).



          The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar^2 |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)



          But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Good question. Your claim that




          near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic




          is not as straightforward as it might seem. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals



          $$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^ 2.$$



          So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).



          The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar^2 |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)



          But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jun 3 at 3:02

























          answered Jun 1 at 20:53









          tparkertparker

          25.1k152134




          25.1k152134







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I understand from this that the electron's average or "expected" kinetic energy is not relativistic. However, the Schrödinger equation looks "local" to me and I am kinda thinking it does seem reasonable to think about it having a value at every point. This is what makes the wave function "wigglier" near the nucleus, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:37






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Whether it's wigglier near the nucleus depends on the orbital - for some choices of $n$ and $l$, the wave function is flat at the nucleus. Anyway, how do you propose to covert the kinetic energy density given by the wave function's gradient to an actually kinetic energy, which will tell you whether the electron is relativistic?
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 17:45










          • $begingroup$
            I propose to locally apply the momentum operator and divide the result by the rest mass and compare it to the speed of light
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 18:12






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            If you do that then the units don't work out. That's what I keep trying to tell you; the momentum operator only returns a quantity with the units of momentum if you integrate it over space. (Also, del is "nabla" in TeX.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung The physical significance of that ratio isn't clear to me. It would be very large at any location where the electron is very unlikely to be, and I don't see why that would correspond to the kinetic energy "at" that location. I just don't think there's any natural local way to define the kinetic energy "at" a location within the setup of nonrelativistic QM. (In the QFT setting, you can talk about the energy-momentum tensor.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 3 at 17:36












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I understand from this that the electron's average or "expected" kinetic energy is not relativistic. However, the Schrödinger equation looks "local" to me and I am kinda thinking it does seem reasonable to think about it having a value at every point. This is what makes the wave function "wigglier" near the nucleus, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:37






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Whether it's wigglier near the nucleus depends on the orbital - for some choices of $n$ and $l$, the wave function is flat at the nucleus. Anyway, how do you propose to covert the kinetic energy density given by the wave function's gradient to an actually kinetic energy, which will tell you whether the electron is relativistic?
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 17:45










          • $begingroup$
            I propose to locally apply the momentum operator and divide the result by the rest mass and compare it to the speed of light
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 18:12






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            If you do that then the units don't work out. That's what I keep trying to tell you; the momentum operator only returns a quantity with the units of momentum if you integrate it over space. (Also, del is "nabla" in TeX.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 2 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PaulYoung The physical significance of that ratio isn't clear to me. It would be very large at any location where the electron is very unlikely to be, and I don't see why that would correspond to the kinetic energy "at" that location. I just don't think there's any natural local way to define the kinetic energy "at" a location within the setup of nonrelativistic QM. (In the QFT setting, you can talk about the energy-momentum tensor.)
            $endgroup$
            – tparker
            Jun 3 at 17:36







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          I understand from this that the electron's average or "expected" kinetic energy is not relativistic. However, the Schrödinger equation looks "local" to me and I am kinda thinking it does seem reasonable to think about it having a value at every point. This is what makes the wave function "wigglier" near the nucleus, right?
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 2 at 14:37




          $begingroup$
          I understand from this that the electron's average or "expected" kinetic energy is not relativistic. However, the Schrödinger equation looks "local" to me and I am kinda thinking it does seem reasonable to think about it having a value at every point. This is what makes the wave function "wigglier" near the nucleus, right?
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 2 at 14:37




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Whether it's wigglier near the nucleus depends on the orbital - for some choices of $n$ and $l$, the wave function is flat at the nucleus. Anyway, how do you propose to covert the kinetic energy density given by the wave function's gradient to an actually kinetic energy, which will tell you whether the electron is relativistic?
          $endgroup$
          – tparker
          Jun 2 at 17:45




          $begingroup$
          Whether it's wigglier near the nucleus depends on the orbital - for some choices of $n$ and $l$, the wave function is flat at the nucleus. Anyway, how do you propose to covert the kinetic energy density given by the wave function's gradient to an actually kinetic energy, which will tell you whether the electron is relativistic?
          $endgroup$
          – tparker
          Jun 2 at 17:45












          $begingroup$
          I propose to locally apply the momentum operator and divide the result by the rest mass and compare it to the speed of light
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 2 at 18:12




          $begingroup$
          I propose to locally apply the momentum operator and divide the result by the rest mass and compare it to the speed of light
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 2 at 18:12




          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          If you do that then the units don't work out. That's what I keep trying to tell you; the momentum operator only returns a quantity with the units of momentum if you integrate it over space. (Also, del is "nabla" in TeX.)
          $endgroup$
          – tparker
          Jun 2 at 18:50




          $begingroup$
          If you do that then the units don't work out. That's what I keep trying to tell you; the momentum operator only returns a quantity with the units of momentum if you integrate it over space. (Also, del is "nabla" in TeX.)
          $endgroup$
          – tparker
          Jun 2 at 18:50




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @PaulYoung The physical significance of that ratio isn't clear to me. It would be very large at any location where the electron is very unlikely to be, and I don't see why that would correspond to the kinetic energy "at" that location. I just don't think there's any natural local way to define the kinetic energy "at" a location within the setup of nonrelativistic QM. (In the QFT setting, you can talk about the energy-momentum tensor.)
          $endgroup$
          – tparker
          Jun 3 at 17:36




          $begingroup$
          @PaulYoung The physical significance of that ratio isn't clear to me. It would be very large at any location where the electron is very unlikely to be, and I don't see why that would correspond to the kinetic energy "at" that location. I just don't think there's any natural local way to define the kinetic energy "at" a location within the setup of nonrelativistic QM. (In the QFT setting, you can talk about the energy-momentum tensor.)
          $endgroup$
          – tparker
          Jun 3 at 17:36











          8












          $begingroup$

          The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location. Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.



          There isn't any relativistic boundary condition, because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.



          Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 16:15










          • $begingroup$
            But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:03










          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:09











          • $begingroup$
            the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:10











          • $begingroup$
            challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:37















          8












          $begingroup$

          The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location. Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.



          There isn't any relativistic boundary condition, because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.



          Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 16:15










          • $begingroup$
            But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:03










          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:09











          • $begingroup$
            the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:10











          • $begingroup$
            challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:37













          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location. Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.



          There isn't any relativistic boundary condition, because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.



          Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location. Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.



          There isn't any relativistic boundary condition, because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.



          Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jun 3 at 10:26









          Peter Mortensen

          1,97711424




          1,97711424










          answered Jun 1 at 15:46









          anna vanna v

          165k8159464




          165k8159464











          • $begingroup$
            I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 16:15










          • $begingroup$
            But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:03










          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:09











          • $begingroup$
            the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:10











          • $begingroup$
            challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:37
















          • $begingroup$
            I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 16:15










          • $begingroup$
            But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:03










          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:09











          • $begingroup$
            the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
            $endgroup$
            – anna v
            Jun 1 at 17:10











          • $begingroup$
            challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 1 at 17:37















          $begingroup$
          I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 1 at 16:15




          $begingroup$
          I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 1 at 16:15












          $begingroup$
          But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
          $endgroup$
          – anna v
          Jun 1 at 17:03




          $begingroup$
          But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
          $endgroup$
          – anna v
          Jun 1 at 17:03












          $begingroup$
          I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 1 at 17:09





          $begingroup$
          I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 1 at 17:09













          $begingroup$
          the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
          $endgroup$
          – anna v
          Jun 1 at 17:10





          $begingroup$
          the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
          $endgroup$
          – anna v
          Jun 1 at 17:10













          $begingroup$
          challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 1 at 17:37




          $begingroup$
          challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 1 at 17:37











          6












          $begingroup$

          The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.



          As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I will check out the reference texts. Schiff's, in particular, sounds like there are some comments I have never seen.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:48















          6












          $begingroup$

          The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.



          As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I will check out the reference texts. Schiff's, in particular, sounds like there are some comments I have never seen.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:48













          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.



          As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.



          As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jun 1 at 18:05

























          answered Jun 1 at 17:52









          my2ctsmy2cts

          7,1822722




          7,1822722











          • $begingroup$
            I will check out the reference texts. Schiff's, in particular, sounds like there are some comments I have never seen.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:48
















          • $begingroup$
            I will check out the reference texts. Schiff's, in particular, sounds like there are some comments I have never seen.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            Jun 2 at 14:48















          $begingroup$
          I will check out the reference texts. Schiff's, in particular, sounds like there are some comments I have never seen.
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 2 at 14:48




          $begingroup$
          I will check out the reference texts. Schiff's, in particular, sounds like there are some comments I have never seen.
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          Jun 2 at 14:48

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483702%2fwhy-does-the-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-equation-work-so-well-for-the-hydrogen-atom-despite-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How to write a 12-bar blues melodyI-IV-V blues progressionHow to play the bridges in a standard blues progressionHow does Gdim7 fit in C# minor?question on a certain chord progressionMusicology of Melody12 bar blues, spread rhythm: alternative to 6th chord to avoid finger stretchChord progressions/ Root key/ MelodiesHow to put chords (POP-EDM) under a given lead vocal melody (starting from a good knowledge in music theory)Are there “rules” for improvising with the minor pentatonic scale over 12-bar shuffle?Confusion about blues scale and chords

          What if the end-user didn't have the required library?What is setup.py?What is a clean, pythonic way to have multiple constructors in Python?What does Ruby have that Python doesn't, and vice versa?What is the reason for having '//' in Python?How do I create a namespace package in Python?How to package shared objects that python modules depend on?setuptools vs. distutils: why is distutils still a thing?Navigation in Windows 10 vs code not going to virtualenv library when the same library is installed at user levelPython create package for local usePackaging a project that uses multiple python versionsWhy is permission denied on pip install except for when “--user” is included at end of command?

          Esgonzo ibérico Índice Descrición Distribución Hábitat Ameazas Notas Véxase tamén "Acerca dos nomes dos anfibios e réptiles galegos""Chalcides bedriagai"Chalcides bedriagai en Carrascal, L. M. Salvador, A. (Eds). Enciclopedia virtual de los vertebrados españoles. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. España.Fotos