Timeline for What is the simplest possible Hamiltonian that yields an Antisymmetric Wavefunction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18, 2019 at 5:25 | comment | added | Ruslan | @urquiza I'm not sure what you mean. The operators should be written in the form where they "assume" that the function vanishes at the locus of same-spin collision. If you do tweak the basis you expand them in, excluding the symmetric basis states, your expansion of the operators will automatically satisfy the antisymmetry requirements. | |
| Mar 17, 2019 at 21:34 | comment | added | urquiza | Do I write the operators (kinetic and potential) also in triangular form? Does that make sense? | |
| Mar 17, 2019 at 21:16 | comment | added | urquiza | Thanks a lot. Your other answer actually also helped me think about spin as well, which is a problem if you want to compute the wavefunction of a two-fermion system. | |
| Mar 17, 2019 at 21:15 | vote | accept | urquiza | ||
| Mar 15, 2019 at 20:46 | history | answered | Ruslan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |