Suppose two non interacting electrons, in a time independent potential, described by the equation:

\begin{equation} {H} \psi(r_1, r_2) = \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m} (\nabla^2_1 + \nabla_2^2) \psi(r_1, r_2) + V(r_1) \,\psi + V(r_2) \,\psi = E \end{equation} We can separate this equation supposing $\psi(r_1, r_2) = \psi_1(r_1) \psi_2(r_2)$. In the process of solving we get $E = E_1 + E_2 $, so:

\begin{equation} H \psi_1(r_1) \psi(r_2) = (E_1 + E_2)\psi_1(r_1) \psi(r_2) = E\psi_1(r_1) \psi(r_2) \end{equation}

Now if I say that the total wave function must be antisymmetric, I can combine both solutions:

$\psi_{TOTAL} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\psi_1(r_1) \psi_2(r_1) - \psi_2(r_1) \psi_1(r_2)]$

But now, this wave function is not necessarily an eigenvector of $H$, so does writing the wave function like this change the energy of the total state? I know the first term of the total wave function is eigenvector of $H$, but the second one not, so what are the possibles energies for this system?


In your particular case where you consider separable wave functions (Hamiltonian has your particles non-interacting), I don't get why you say that the form $\psi_{TOTAL} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\psi_1(r_1) \psi_2(r_1) - \psi_2(r_1) \psi_1(r_2)]$ is not necessarily a solution.

Indeed, this is just a linear combination of Hartree products of one-electron wavefunctions. You were OK to accept those procuts individually as a solution, so why would a linear combination not be?

Plus, if you do understand that $<\psi_1(r_1) \psi(r_2)| H |\psi_1(r_1) \psi(r_2)> = E_1 + E_2 = E$, you can check very easily what is going on for your slater determinant: $$ H |\psi_1(r_1) \psi_2(r_2)-\psi_2(r_1) \psi_1(r_2)> = H |\psi_1(r_1) \psi_2(r_2)> -H |\psi_2(r_1) \psi_1(r_2)>$$ $$= (E1+E2)|\psi_1(r_1) \psi_2(r_2)> - (E1+E2)|\psi_2(r_1) \psi_1(r_2)> = E |\psi_1(r_1) \psi_2(r_2)-\psi_2(r_1) \psi_1(r_2)>$$

so that $<\psi_{TOTAL}|H|\psi_{TOTAL}>=E$, giving you the same Energy

EDIT: To see that the exchanged product yields the same value, consider that you can spearate your Hamiltonian in two: $H=H_1+H_2$ where $$H_i= \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2_i + V(r_i) $$ each of those hamiltonian acts only on one particle so you have: $$H |\psi_1(r_1) \psi_2(r_2)> = (H_1 |\psi_1(r_1)>)\otimes|\psi_2(r_2)> + \psi_1(r_1)> \otimes (H_2 |\psi_2(r_2)>) $$ with $H_1 |\psi_1(r_1)>=E_1|\psi_1(r_1)>$ and $H_2 |\psi_2(r_2)>=E_2|\psi_2(r_2)>$

Now, you can realize that the two hamiltonians are the same, only they are acting on different particles. Right? So if you have $H_1 |\psi_1(r_1)>=E_1|\psi_1(r_1)>$, you MUST have $H_2 |\psi_1(r_2)>=E_1|\psi_1(r_2)>$ because H1 and H2 are those same hamiltonians (only acting on r1 or r2), and give the same eigenvalue for the same eigenvector. Therefore: $$H|\psi_2(r1)\psi_1(r2)>=(H_1 |\psi_2(r_1)>)\otimes|\psi_1(r_2)> + \psi_2(r_1)> \otimes (H_2 |\psi_1(r_2)>) $$ $$=E_2 |\psi_2(r_1)>\otimes|\psi_1(r_2)> + E_1\psi_2(r_1)> \otimes |\psi_1(r_2)>=(E_1+E_2)|\psi_2(r_1)\psi_1(r_2)>$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I know it is a solution, my question was if it was a solution with the same eigenvalue. The point of confusion is because I can't see why $ H \psi_2(r_1) \psi_1(r_2) = E_2 +E_1 $. If I only know the case with changed coordinates. $\endgroup$ – Socrates Nov 1 '19 at 4:04
  • $\begingroup$ Ask yourself why you accepted in the first place that $\psi_1(r_1) \psi_2(r_2)$ was an eigenvector of H with eigenvalue $E_1+E_2$. The same line of thought should lead you to accept the same for the exchanged wavefunction, since the Hamiltonain is the same for both particles. On a side note, you are writing your eigenvalue relationship wrong; the hamiltonian does not reduce a wavefunction to a real value $\endgroup$ – Barbaud Julien Nov 1 '19 at 4:14
  • $\begingroup$ I supposed that I solved the equation and found out, now if you solve for the other case why would you get the same $\endgroup$ – Socrates Nov 1 '19 at 4:15
  • $\begingroup$ In the process of separating variables, whe define two constans, in the end we get that $E$ is the sum of both. $\endgroup$ – Socrates Nov 1 '19 at 4:17
  • $\begingroup$ edited to answer by separating the hamiltonian $\endgroup$ – Barbaud Julien Nov 1 '19 at 4:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.