Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
School of Physics and Astronomy Wiki

User Tools

Trace:
classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1109

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1109 [2009/11/10 11:03] – x500_dues0009classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1109 [2009/11/30 09:13] (current) – x500_bast0052
Line 1: Line 1:
-===== Nov 09 (Mon)  =====+===== Nov 09 (Mon) Legendre closure, Radial WF and spherical Bessel =====
 **Return to Q&A main page: [[Q_A]]**\\ **Return to Q&A main page: [[Q_A]]**\\
 **Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_1106]]**\\ **Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_1106]]**\\
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 Take for instance the energy level after the ones it asks us to solve for in the question. <math>E_7</math> has states of n = 3,2,2 respectively.  This would give us 3 degenerate states, of energy <math>17 {\pi^2\hbar^2}/{2ma^2}</math>.  For <math>E_8</math> we have an energy of <math>18 {\pi^2\hbar^2}/{2ma^2}</math>. The next energy level is <math>19 {\pi^2\hbar^2}/{2ma^2}</math>, then, however, the energy is <math>21 {\pi^2\hbar^2}/{2ma^2}</math>, as no combination of <math>n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2</math> can add to equal 20.  As the energy level increases, there are some energy levels that cannot be reached, and some energy levels that may be able to be reached by more than one configuration of <math>n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2</math>s.  Think about that for a while and it should come to you. Take for instance the energy level after the ones it asks us to solve for in the question. <math>E_7</math> has states of n = 3,2,2 respectively.  This would give us 3 degenerate states, of energy <math>17 {\pi^2\hbar^2}/{2ma^2}</math>.  For <math>E_8</math> we have an energy of <math>18 {\pi^2\hbar^2}/{2ma^2}</math>. The next energy level is <math>19 {\pi^2\hbar^2}/{2ma^2}</math>, then, however, the energy is <math>21 {\pi^2\hbar^2}/{2ma^2}</math>, as no combination of <math>n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2</math> can add to equal 20.  As the energy level increases, there are some energy levels that cannot be reached, and some energy levels that may be able to be reached by more than one configuration of <math>n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2</math>s.  Think about that for a while and it should come to you.
 +
 +
 +=== Mercury 11/10/2009 7:30 pm ===
 +E14 is interesting because it has a degeneracy of 4, whereas all the previous energies have degeneracies of 1, 3, or 6. The different values for n are (3,3,3), (5,1,1), (1,5,1), and (1,1,5).
  
 ==== Schrodinger's Dog 11/7/09 7:51am ==== ==== Schrodinger's Dog 11/7/09 7:51am ====
Line 46: Line 50:
 ==== nikif002 11/9/09 12:17am ==== ==== nikif002 11/9/09 12:17am ====
 I have a very fundamental question about the material we have been covering in this class. I would like to know more about the time-independent potential assumption that we have been making. Since so many important results follow directly from it, just how different is quantum dynamics from time-independent QM? And how useful is quantum dynamics in applications? Of course, in reality, all potentials are time dependent, but I am guessing you can make a quasi-static assumption for time-dependence that is slow enough in comparison to the wavefunction time-dependence. Are there any phenomena for which you absolutely need to solve the time-dependent Schrodinger equation (whether numerically or analytically) to get a reasonably accurate result? And if so, what are they? I have a very fundamental question about the material we have been covering in this class. I would like to know more about the time-independent potential assumption that we have been making. Since so many important results follow directly from it, just how different is quantum dynamics from time-independent QM? And how useful is quantum dynamics in applications? Of course, in reality, all potentials are time dependent, but I am guessing you can make a quasi-static assumption for time-dependence that is slow enough in comparison to the wavefunction time-dependence. Are there any phenomena for which you absolutely need to solve the time-dependent Schrodinger equation (whether numerically or analytically) to get a reasonably accurate result? And if so, what are they?
 +
 +===chavez 11/10/09 7:30pm===
 +If you're talking about things like the hyrdogen atom in free space then time-independent assumption is acceptable because the standard coulomb potential has no time-dependence. Time-dependence becomes important when you are no longer talking about free space and there are other fields that can affect the particle. As far as applications for a time-dependent potential go, I think lasers/masers would probably be one of the more interesting ones. 
 +I found the following link to be a pretty good read: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/752.mf1i.spring03/Time_Dep_PT.htm
  
 ==== Cuthulhu Food 11/9/09 9:30am ==== ==== Cuthulhu Food 11/9/09 9:30am ====
Line 62: Line 70:
 ===Pluto 4ever 11/9 8:33PM=== ===Pluto 4ever 11/9 8:33PM===
 I basically did the same thing by using integration by parts l times that way you can get the <math>(\frac{d}{dx})^l^'(x^2-1)^l^'</math> to reduce to (2l')!. From there I expanded out <math>(x^2-1)^l</math> and noticed that when I took the integral of the first term from -1 to 1 I got <math>\frac{2}{2l+1}</math>. From there I used some reasoning to get a final answer. I basically did the same thing by using integration by parts l times that way you can get the <math>(\frac{d}{dx})^l^'(x^2-1)^l^'</math> to reduce to (2l')!. From there I expanded out <math>(x^2-1)^l</math> and noticed that when I took the integral of the first term from -1 to 1 I got <math>\frac{2}{2l+1}</math>. From there I used some reasoning to get a final answer.
 +====Esquire 11/12/09 AD (Information Age) 8:15pm====
 +Can a multidimensional hermitian operator be expressed as a non-square matrix? Such as a 3X27 matrix? 
  
 +===Spherical Harmonic  11/12/09===   
 +er.. chicken....
 +I believe that in fact the operator has to be square -- the rules of matrix multiplication say that a 1x4 * 4x4 give 1x4.  We need to preserve the space coordinates -- if it were a 4x3... we'd get a 1x3 and completely wipe out a space coordinate.... so unless you have an operator that shrinks space down a dimension... I do believe we need square operators of 1x4, 4x4 etc.  or... maybe there's a space creating operator... 4x27 ... STring theory'd be happy. 
  
 +===Devilin===
 +I'm also pretty sure it needs to be square in order to take it's determinant. 
  
 +===Esquire (Age of Aquarius) 11/12/09===
 +I believe that such operators need to be square so that eigenvalues and eigenvectors can be found. This is done via the determinent method, which only is doable with square matrices. 
  
  
classes/2009/fall/phys4101.001/q_a_1109.1257872605.txt.gz · Last modified: 2009/11/10 11:03 by x500_dues0009

Page Tools