Talk:Solid harmonics: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Paul Wormer
No edit summary
imported>Jitse Niesen
(explain my issue)
Line 24: Line 24:
</math>
</math>
::What do you think it should be? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:21, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
::What do you think it should be? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:21, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
:::I may well be misunderstanding what the article is saying. My issue is that you say first that, in spherical coordinates,
::::<math> \nabla^2 =  \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}r - \frac{L^2}{r^2} </math>.
:::If I try to substitute
::::<math> \mathbf{L} = -i\hbar\, (\mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{\nabla}), </math>
:::then I get
::::<math> \nabla^2 =  \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}r + \frac{\hbar^2}{r^2} (\mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{\nabla}) \cdot (\mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{\nabla}). </math>
:::But the Laplacian should be independent of hbar. Perhaps the problem is in the first formula, and it should be
::::<math> \nabla^2\Phi(\mathbf{r}) =  \left(\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}r - \frac{L^2}{\hbar^2r^2}\right)\Phi(\mathbf{r}) = 0 , \qquad \mathbf{r} \ne \mathbf{0}. </math>
:::I hope you can make sense of it. It's ten years ago that I did this stuff, and I never did it properly. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 09:53, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 09:53, 24 August 2007


Article Checklist for "Solid harmonics"
Workgroup category or categories Physics Workgroup, Mathematics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? No
Checklist last edited by --Paul Wormer 04:18, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





This article (my own article from Wikipedia) gave LaTeX errors which I worked around. Added to WP version section on relation to regular and irregular solid harmonics and references. --Paul Wormer 04:18, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Hi Paul. Is the definition of the orbital angular momentum (second displayed equation) correct? The factor seems out of place. -- Jitse Niesen 08:01, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
Hallo Jitse, I don't see what is wrong. Classically :
QM:
What do you think it should be? --Paul Wormer 09:21, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
I may well be misunderstanding what the article is saying. My issue is that you say first that, in spherical coordinates,
.
If I try to substitute
then I get
But the Laplacian should be independent of hbar. Perhaps the problem is in the first formula, and it should be
I hope you can make sense of it. It's ten years ago that I did this stuff, and I never did it properly. -- Jitse Niesen 09:53, 24 August 2007 (CDT)