When is separating the total wavefunction into a space part and a spin part possible?Anti-symmetric 2 particle wave functionA conceptual question about spinAntisymmetry requirement for the total wavefunctionConnection between singlet, triplet two-electron states and the Slater determinantMeasuring total angular momentum of two electronsTwo identical particlesConfusion on good quantum numbersSpectrum of two particles system hamiltonianAbout the symmetric spatial part of a two-electron wavefunction: Can it be that $r_1= r_2$ less favoured than $|r_1-r_2|neq 0$?What is the simplest possible Hamiltonian that yields an Antisymmetric Wavefunction?

Why Were Madagascar and New Zealand Discovered So Late?

Can criminal fraud exist without damages?

What's a natural way to say that someone works somewhere (for a job)?

Do I need a multiple entry visa for a trip UK -> Sweden -> UK?

Opposite of a diet

How does residential electricity work?

Mapping a list into a phase plot

Time travel short story where a man arrives in the late 19th century in a time machine and then sends the machine back into the past

Are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim?

Generic lambda vs generic function give different behaviour

How can I replace every global instance of "x[2]" with "x_2"

What would happen if the UK refused to take part in EU Parliamentary elections?

Can I Retrieve Email Addresses from BCC?

Confused about a passage in Harry Potter y la piedra filosofal

Print name if parameter passed to function

How to be diplomatic in refusing to write code that breaches the privacy of our users

What defines a dissertation?

How do I define a right arrow with bar in LaTeX?

The plural of 'stomach"

How will losing mobility of one hand affect my career as a programmer?

Greatest common substring

How does it work when somebody invests in my business?

Where in the Bible does the greeting ("Dominus Vobiscum") used at Mass come from?

Efficiently merge handle parallel feature branches in SFDX



When is separating the total wavefunction into a space part and a spin part possible?


Anti-symmetric 2 particle wave functionA conceptual question about spinAntisymmetry requirement for the total wavefunctionConnection between singlet, triplet two-electron states and the Slater determinantMeasuring total angular momentum of two electronsTwo identical particlesConfusion on good quantum numbersSpectrum of two particles system hamiltonianAbout the symmetric spatial part of a two-electron wavefunction: Can it be that $r_1= r_2$ less favoured than $|r_1-r_2|neq 0$?What is the simplest possible Hamiltonian that yields an Antisymmetric Wavefunction?













5












$begingroup$


The total wavefunction of an electron $psi(vecr,s)$ can always be written as $$psi(vecr,s)=phi(vecr)zeta_s,m_s$$ where $phi(vecr)$ is the space part and $zeta_s,m_s$ is the spin part of the total wavefunction $psi(vecr,s)$. In my notation, $s=1/2, m_s=pm 1/2$.



Question 1 Is the above statement true? I am asking about any wavefunction here. Not only about energy eigenfunctions.



Now imagine a system of two electrons. Even without any knowledge about the Hamiltonian of the system, the overall wavefunction $psi(vecr_1,vecr_2;s_1,s_2)$ is antisymmetric. I think (I have this impression) under this general conditions, it is not possible to decompose $psi(vecr_1,vecr_2;s_1,s_2)$ into a product of a space part and spin part. However, if the Hamiltonian is spin-independent, only then can we do such a decomposition into space part and spin part.



Question 2 Can someone properly argue that how this is so? Please mention about any wavefunction of the system and about energy eigenfunctions.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    5












    $begingroup$


    The total wavefunction of an electron $psi(vecr,s)$ can always be written as $$psi(vecr,s)=phi(vecr)zeta_s,m_s$$ where $phi(vecr)$ is the space part and $zeta_s,m_s$ is the spin part of the total wavefunction $psi(vecr,s)$. In my notation, $s=1/2, m_s=pm 1/2$.



    Question 1 Is the above statement true? I am asking about any wavefunction here. Not only about energy eigenfunctions.



    Now imagine a system of two electrons. Even without any knowledge about the Hamiltonian of the system, the overall wavefunction $psi(vecr_1,vecr_2;s_1,s_2)$ is antisymmetric. I think (I have this impression) under this general conditions, it is not possible to decompose $psi(vecr_1,vecr_2;s_1,s_2)$ into a product of a space part and spin part. However, if the Hamiltonian is spin-independent, only then can we do such a decomposition into space part and spin part.



    Question 2 Can someone properly argue that how this is so? Please mention about any wavefunction of the system and about energy eigenfunctions.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$


      The total wavefunction of an electron $psi(vecr,s)$ can always be written as $$psi(vecr,s)=phi(vecr)zeta_s,m_s$$ where $phi(vecr)$ is the space part and $zeta_s,m_s$ is the spin part of the total wavefunction $psi(vecr,s)$. In my notation, $s=1/2, m_s=pm 1/2$.



      Question 1 Is the above statement true? I am asking about any wavefunction here. Not only about energy eigenfunctions.



      Now imagine a system of two electrons. Even without any knowledge about the Hamiltonian of the system, the overall wavefunction $psi(vecr_1,vecr_2;s_1,s_2)$ is antisymmetric. I think (I have this impression) under this general conditions, it is not possible to decompose $psi(vecr_1,vecr_2;s_1,s_2)$ into a product of a space part and spin part. However, if the Hamiltonian is spin-independent, only then can we do such a decomposition into space part and spin part.



      Question 2 Can someone properly argue that how this is so? Please mention about any wavefunction of the system and about energy eigenfunctions.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      The total wavefunction of an electron $psi(vecr,s)$ can always be written as $$psi(vecr,s)=phi(vecr)zeta_s,m_s$$ where $phi(vecr)$ is the space part and $zeta_s,m_s$ is the spin part of the total wavefunction $psi(vecr,s)$. In my notation, $s=1/2, m_s=pm 1/2$.



      Question 1 Is the above statement true? I am asking about any wavefunction here. Not only about energy eigenfunctions.



      Now imagine a system of two electrons. Even without any knowledge about the Hamiltonian of the system, the overall wavefunction $psi(vecr_1,vecr_2;s_1,s_2)$ is antisymmetric. I think (I have this impression) under this general conditions, it is not possible to decompose $psi(vecr_1,vecr_2;s_1,s_2)$ into a product of a space part and spin part. However, if the Hamiltonian is spin-independent, only then can we do such a decomposition into space part and spin part.



      Question 2 Can someone properly argue that how this is so? Please mention about any wavefunction of the system and about energy eigenfunctions.







      quantum-mechanics wavefunction quantum-spin pauli-exclusion-principle identical-particles






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited yesterday







      mithusengupta123

















      asked yesterday









      mithusengupta123mithusengupta123

      1,32311539




      1,32311539




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11












          $begingroup$

          Your claim




          [any arbitrary] wavefunction of an electron $psi(vecr,s)$ can always be written as $$psi(vecr,s)=phi(vecr)zeta_s,m_s tag 1$$ where $phi(vecr)$ is the space part and $zeta_s,m_s$ is the spin part of the total wavefunction $psi(vecr,s)$




          is false. It is perfectly possible to produce wavefunctions which cannot be written in that separable form - for a simple example, just take two orthogonal spatial wavefunctions, $phi_1$ and $phi_2$, and two orthogonal spin states, $zeta_1$ and $zeta_2$, and define
          $$
          psi = frac1sqrt2bigg[phi_1zeta_1+phi_2zeta_2 bigg].
          $$



          Moreover, to be clear: the hamiltonian of a system has absolutely no effect on the allowed wavefunctions for that system. The only thing that depends on the hamiltonian is the energy eigenstates.



          The result you want is the following:




          If the hamiltonian is separable into spatial and spin components as $$ H = H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I+ mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin,$$ with $H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I$ commuting with all spin operators and $mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin$ commuting with all space operators, then there exists an eigenbasis for $H$ of the separable form $(1)$.




          To build that eigenbasis, simply diagonalize $H_mathrmspace$ and $H_mathrmspin$ independently, and form tensor products of their eigenstates. (Note also that the quantifiers here are crucial, particularly the "If" in the hypotheses and the "there exists" in the results.)






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SRS The claim is specifically that there exists a separable eigenbasis. There is no claim that all eigenbases for such a hamiltonian are separable, because that claim is false. Please read more carefully.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @SRS "H atom problem" is undefined. (I.e.: are you including fine structure and spin-orbit coupling?) If you're only talking about the Keplerian hamiltonian (i.e. kinetic energy plus electrostatic potential energy, with a frozen proton) then yes, a separable eigenbasis exists; there the $zeta_j$ are arbitrary (as there is no spin hamiltonian). If you're including spin-orbit coupling, then the hamiltonian does not satisfy the hypotheses I laid out, and the result is false.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday











          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for back-and-forth - particularly about another user's question. If you have further queries, take them to chat or ask separately.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            Is the statement that all the $H_spaceotimes I$ must commute with all the $Iotimes H_spin$ not redundant? From the way you have written them, it seems like they must commute, no?
            $endgroup$
            – user1936752
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @user1936752 Yes, this is redundant, but I don't think it hurts.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          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%2f468581%2fwhen-is-separating-the-total-wavefunction-into-a-space-part-and-a-spin-part-poss%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          11












          $begingroup$

          Your claim




          [any arbitrary] wavefunction of an electron $psi(vecr,s)$ can always be written as $$psi(vecr,s)=phi(vecr)zeta_s,m_s tag 1$$ where $phi(vecr)$ is the space part and $zeta_s,m_s$ is the spin part of the total wavefunction $psi(vecr,s)$




          is false. It is perfectly possible to produce wavefunctions which cannot be written in that separable form - for a simple example, just take two orthogonal spatial wavefunctions, $phi_1$ and $phi_2$, and two orthogonal spin states, $zeta_1$ and $zeta_2$, and define
          $$
          psi = frac1sqrt2bigg[phi_1zeta_1+phi_2zeta_2 bigg].
          $$



          Moreover, to be clear: the hamiltonian of a system has absolutely no effect on the allowed wavefunctions for that system. The only thing that depends on the hamiltonian is the energy eigenstates.



          The result you want is the following:




          If the hamiltonian is separable into spatial and spin components as $$ H = H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I+ mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin,$$ with $H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I$ commuting with all spin operators and $mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin$ commuting with all space operators, then there exists an eigenbasis for $H$ of the separable form $(1)$.




          To build that eigenbasis, simply diagonalize $H_mathrmspace$ and $H_mathrmspin$ independently, and form tensor products of their eigenstates. (Note also that the quantifiers here are crucial, particularly the "If" in the hypotheses and the "there exists" in the results.)






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SRS The claim is specifically that there exists a separable eigenbasis. There is no claim that all eigenbases for such a hamiltonian are separable, because that claim is false. Please read more carefully.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @SRS "H atom problem" is undefined. (I.e.: are you including fine structure and spin-orbit coupling?) If you're only talking about the Keplerian hamiltonian (i.e. kinetic energy plus electrostatic potential energy, with a frozen proton) then yes, a separable eigenbasis exists; there the $zeta_j$ are arbitrary (as there is no spin hamiltonian). If you're including spin-orbit coupling, then the hamiltonian does not satisfy the hypotheses I laid out, and the result is false.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday











          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for back-and-forth - particularly about another user's question. If you have further queries, take them to chat or ask separately.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            Is the statement that all the $H_spaceotimes I$ must commute with all the $Iotimes H_spin$ not redundant? From the way you have written them, it seems like they must commute, no?
            $endgroup$
            – user1936752
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @user1936752 Yes, this is redundant, but I don't think it hurts.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday















          11












          $begingroup$

          Your claim




          [any arbitrary] wavefunction of an electron $psi(vecr,s)$ can always be written as $$psi(vecr,s)=phi(vecr)zeta_s,m_s tag 1$$ where $phi(vecr)$ is the space part and $zeta_s,m_s$ is the spin part of the total wavefunction $psi(vecr,s)$




          is false. It is perfectly possible to produce wavefunctions which cannot be written in that separable form - for a simple example, just take two orthogonal spatial wavefunctions, $phi_1$ and $phi_2$, and two orthogonal spin states, $zeta_1$ and $zeta_2$, and define
          $$
          psi = frac1sqrt2bigg[phi_1zeta_1+phi_2zeta_2 bigg].
          $$



          Moreover, to be clear: the hamiltonian of a system has absolutely no effect on the allowed wavefunctions for that system. The only thing that depends on the hamiltonian is the energy eigenstates.



          The result you want is the following:




          If the hamiltonian is separable into spatial and spin components as $$ H = H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I+ mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin,$$ with $H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I$ commuting with all spin operators and $mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin$ commuting with all space operators, then there exists an eigenbasis for $H$ of the separable form $(1)$.




          To build that eigenbasis, simply diagonalize $H_mathrmspace$ and $H_mathrmspin$ independently, and form tensor products of their eigenstates. (Note also that the quantifiers here are crucial, particularly the "If" in the hypotheses and the "there exists" in the results.)






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SRS The claim is specifically that there exists a separable eigenbasis. There is no claim that all eigenbases for such a hamiltonian are separable, because that claim is false. Please read more carefully.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @SRS "H atom problem" is undefined. (I.e.: are you including fine structure and spin-orbit coupling?) If you're only talking about the Keplerian hamiltonian (i.e. kinetic energy plus electrostatic potential energy, with a frozen proton) then yes, a separable eigenbasis exists; there the $zeta_j$ are arbitrary (as there is no spin hamiltonian). If you're including spin-orbit coupling, then the hamiltonian does not satisfy the hypotheses I laid out, and the result is false.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday











          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for back-and-forth - particularly about another user's question. If you have further queries, take them to chat or ask separately.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            Is the statement that all the $H_spaceotimes I$ must commute with all the $Iotimes H_spin$ not redundant? From the way you have written them, it seems like they must commute, no?
            $endgroup$
            – user1936752
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @user1936752 Yes, this is redundant, but I don't think it hurts.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday













          11












          11








          11





          $begingroup$

          Your claim




          [any arbitrary] wavefunction of an electron $psi(vecr,s)$ can always be written as $$psi(vecr,s)=phi(vecr)zeta_s,m_s tag 1$$ where $phi(vecr)$ is the space part and $zeta_s,m_s$ is the spin part of the total wavefunction $psi(vecr,s)$




          is false. It is perfectly possible to produce wavefunctions which cannot be written in that separable form - for a simple example, just take two orthogonal spatial wavefunctions, $phi_1$ and $phi_2$, and two orthogonal spin states, $zeta_1$ and $zeta_2$, and define
          $$
          psi = frac1sqrt2bigg[phi_1zeta_1+phi_2zeta_2 bigg].
          $$



          Moreover, to be clear: the hamiltonian of a system has absolutely no effect on the allowed wavefunctions for that system. The only thing that depends on the hamiltonian is the energy eigenstates.



          The result you want is the following:




          If the hamiltonian is separable into spatial and spin components as $$ H = H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I+ mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin,$$ with $H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I$ commuting with all spin operators and $mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin$ commuting with all space operators, then there exists an eigenbasis for $H$ of the separable form $(1)$.




          To build that eigenbasis, simply diagonalize $H_mathrmspace$ and $H_mathrmspin$ independently, and form tensor products of their eigenstates. (Note also that the quantifiers here are crucial, particularly the "If" in the hypotheses and the "there exists" in the results.)






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Your claim




          [any arbitrary] wavefunction of an electron $psi(vecr,s)$ can always be written as $$psi(vecr,s)=phi(vecr)zeta_s,m_s tag 1$$ where $phi(vecr)$ is the space part and $zeta_s,m_s$ is the spin part of the total wavefunction $psi(vecr,s)$




          is false. It is perfectly possible to produce wavefunctions which cannot be written in that separable form - for a simple example, just take two orthogonal spatial wavefunctions, $phi_1$ and $phi_2$, and two orthogonal spin states, $zeta_1$ and $zeta_2$, and define
          $$
          psi = frac1sqrt2bigg[phi_1zeta_1+phi_2zeta_2 bigg].
          $$



          Moreover, to be clear: the hamiltonian of a system has absolutely no effect on the allowed wavefunctions for that system. The only thing that depends on the hamiltonian is the energy eigenstates.



          The result you want is the following:




          If the hamiltonian is separable into spatial and spin components as $$ H = H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I+ mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin,$$ with $H_mathrmspaceotimes mathbb I$ commuting with all spin operators and $mathbb I otimes H_mathrmspin$ commuting with all space operators, then there exists an eigenbasis for $H$ of the separable form $(1)$.




          To build that eigenbasis, simply diagonalize $H_mathrmspace$ and $H_mathrmspin$ independently, and form tensor products of their eigenstates. (Note also that the quantifiers here are crucial, particularly the "If" in the hypotheses and the "there exists" in the results.)







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

          86.1k23213433




          86.1k23213433







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SRS The claim is specifically that there exists a separable eigenbasis. There is no claim that all eigenbases for such a hamiltonian are separable, because that claim is false. Please read more carefully.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @SRS "H atom problem" is undefined. (I.e.: are you including fine structure and spin-orbit coupling?) If you're only talking about the Keplerian hamiltonian (i.e. kinetic energy plus electrostatic potential energy, with a frozen proton) then yes, a separable eigenbasis exists; there the $zeta_j$ are arbitrary (as there is no spin hamiltonian). If you're including spin-orbit coupling, then the hamiltonian does not satisfy the hypotheses I laid out, and the result is false.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday











          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for back-and-forth - particularly about another user's question. If you have further queries, take them to chat or ask separately.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            Is the statement that all the $H_spaceotimes I$ must commute with all the $Iotimes H_spin$ not redundant? From the way you have written them, it seems like they must commute, no?
            $endgroup$
            – user1936752
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @user1936752 Yes, this is redundant, but I don't think it hurts.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SRS The claim is specifically that there exists a separable eigenbasis. There is no claim that all eigenbases for such a hamiltonian are separable, because that claim is false. Please read more carefully.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @SRS "H atom problem" is undefined. (I.e.: are you including fine structure and spin-orbit coupling?) If you're only talking about the Keplerian hamiltonian (i.e. kinetic energy plus electrostatic potential energy, with a frozen proton) then yes, a separable eigenbasis exists; there the $zeta_j$ are arbitrary (as there is no spin hamiltonian). If you're including spin-orbit coupling, then the hamiltonian does not satisfy the hypotheses I laid out, and the result is false.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday











          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for back-and-forth - particularly about another user's question. If you have further queries, take them to chat or ask separately.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            Is the statement that all the $H_spaceotimes I$ must commute with all the $Iotimes H_spin$ not redundant? From the way you have written them, it seems like they must commute, no?
            $endgroup$
            – user1936752
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @user1936752 Yes, this is redundant, but I don't think it hurts.
            $endgroup$
            – Emilio Pisanty
            yesterday







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @SRS The claim is specifically that there exists a separable eigenbasis. There is no claim that all eigenbases for such a hamiltonian are separable, because that claim is false. Please read more carefully.
          $endgroup$
          – Emilio Pisanty
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          @SRS The claim is specifically that there exists a separable eigenbasis. There is no claim that all eigenbases for such a hamiltonian are separable, because that claim is false. Please read more carefully.
          $endgroup$
          – Emilio Pisanty
          yesterday












          $begingroup$
          @SRS "H atom problem" is undefined. (I.e.: are you including fine structure and spin-orbit coupling?) If you're only talking about the Keplerian hamiltonian (i.e. kinetic energy plus electrostatic potential energy, with a frozen proton) then yes, a separable eigenbasis exists; there the $zeta_j$ are arbitrary (as there is no spin hamiltonian). If you're including spin-orbit coupling, then the hamiltonian does not satisfy the hypotheses I laid out, and the result is false.
          $endgroup$
          – Emilio Pisanty
          yesterday





          $begingroup$
          @SRS "H atom problem" is undefined. (I.e.: are you including fine structure and spin-orbit coupling?) If you're only talking about the Keplerian hamiltonian (i.e. kinetic energy plus electrostatic potential energy, with a frozen proton) then yes, a separable eigenbasis exists; there the $zeta_j$ are arbitrary (as there is no spin hamiltonian). If you're including spin-orbit coupling, then the hamiltonian does not satisfy the hypotheses I laid out, and the result is false.
          $endgroup$
          – Emilio Pisanty
          yesterday













          $begingroup$
          Comments are not for back-and-forth - particularly about another user's question. If you have further queries, take them to chat or ask separately.
          $endgroup$
          – Emilio Pisanty
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          Comments are not for back-and-forth - particularly about another user's question. If you have further queries, take them to chat or ask separately.
          $endgroup$
          – Emilio Pisanty
          yesterday












          $begingroup$
          Is the statement that all the $H_spaceotimes I$ must commute with all the $Iotimes H_spin$ not redundant? From the way you have written them, it seems like they must commute, no?
          $endgroup$
          – user1936752
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          Is the statement that all the $H_spaceotimes I$ must commute with all the $Iotimes H_spin$ not redundant? From the way you have written them, it seems like they must commute, no?
          $endgroup$
          – user1936752
          yesterday












          $begingroup$
          @user1936752 Yes, this is redundant, but I don't think it hurts.
          $endgroup$
          – Emilio Pisanty
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          @user1936752 Yes, this is redundant, but I don't think it hurts.
          $endgroup$
          – Emilio Pisanty
          yesterday

















          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%2f468581%2fwhen-is-separating-the-total-wavefunction-into-a-space-part-and-a-spin-part-poss%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







          -identical-particles, pauli-exclusion-principle, quantum-mechanics, quantum-spin, wavefunction

          Popular posts from this blog

          Word for a person who has no opinion about whether god existsWord for having a definite opinion while simultaneously withholding judgment?What's the opposite of “newcomer? Is ”veteran" OK?What do you call an “atheist” who might believe in an afterlife?What's a word for someone who wants to voice opinions but not have them challenged?Word for someone who dismisses contrary opinions as irrational?Somone who thinks they are overly special/out of the ordinaryIs there a word, phrase or idiom for “a person who is incapable of thinking about the future”?The belief that a god is human-likeA word for a non-famous person/thing you have heard a lot aboutAdjective for a person who enjoys taking care of their appearance

          What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?What was this set of RPG tools called?As a first-time DM should I let my players play complex character classes and roles?Nymph's Kiss and the RelationshipWhat was the name of this Cleric Prestige Class that shapes metal with its bare hands?Are the 3.5e Dragonlance books third party or official works?What's up with the domain Vile Darkness?What was this 80s book about RPGs?What was the name of this Werewolf band?What book had Rituals to “upgrade” animal companions to keep them viable at higher levels?What was this RPG that had rules for player-owned businesses?

          2017 IndyCar Series Contents Series news Teams and drivers Schedule Season summary Footnotes References External links Navigation menu"INDYCAR: Initial 2018 bodywork concepts unveiled"the original"IndyCar confirms switch to Performance Friction brakes in 2017""AJ Foyt Racing will switch to Chevy"the original"Carlos Munoz, Conor Daly will drive for AJ Foyt Racing""Zach Veach's Indy 500 Debut Confirmed with Foyt""No mass exodus from Honda after Ganassi switch""Ex-F1 driver Sato joins Andretti Autosport for 2017 IndyCar season""IndyCar's Ryan Hunter-Reay, sponsor DHL paired through 2020""hhgregg and Andretti Autosport announce partnership for key races in 2016""INDYCAR: Rossi re-signs with Andretti"the original"McLaren Formula 1 - Fernando Alonso to race at Indy 500 with McLaren, Honda and Andretti Autosport""Shank will finally take part in Indy 500 with Harvey, Andretti | MotorSportsTalk""Andretti adds Jack Harvey to Indy 500 field""Ganassi switches to Honda power for 2017""INDYCAR: Chilton returns to Ganassi"the original"IndyCar silly season: Who's going where in 2017?""INDYCAR: Kanaan, NTT Data return to Ganassi"the original"Kimball to remain at Ganassi for 2017""Coyne confirms Bourdais for 2017 IndyCar season""Davison to sub for Bourdais in Indy 500"the original"Gutierrez confirmed for Detroit IndyCar debut""Gutierrez returns with Coyne for rest of 2017 season""Vautier to drive for Coyne at Texas"the original"INDYCAR: Coyne confirms Jones for 2017"the original"Pippa Mann returns to Coyne for Indy 500""Karam, Dreyer & Reinbold teaming up again for Indianapolis 500""Pigot to return to Ed Carpenter Racing""Hildebrand confirmed as full-time Ed Carpenter driver""Veach to replace injured Hildebrand at Barber"the originalNew Team Harding Racing Enters Chaves for 101st Indianapolis 500"Juncos Racing Announces Entry in 101st Running of the Indianapolis 500 :: Juncos Racing""Juncos confirms Pigot for Indy 500""Saavedra confirmed in Juncos' second 500 entry"the original"Lazier confirms Indy 500 run after son's USF2000 debut"the original"Claman DeMelo to race for RLLR at Sonoma"the original"Rahal signs Servia and ace engineer for 2017""IndyCar: Aleshin returns with Schmidt"the original"Aleshin replaced by Saavedra for Toronto""Jack Harvey will pilot SPM No. 7 car at Watkins Glen, Sonoma""Jay Howard confirmed in Tony Stewart's supported SPM Indy entry""INDYCAR: Newgarden to wave the flag at Penske"the original"Pagenaud opts for No. 1 in 2017"the original"Penske confirms Newgarden for 2017""Montoya to stay with Team Penske in 2017""Target leaving IndyCar after 27 seasons with Chip Ganassi""Cavin: IndyCar could see complete driver/team shakeup in 2017""End of the road for KV Racing?""KV Racing confirms closure, equipment sold to Juncos""Juncos confirms IndyCar Series entry"the original"Juncos readies IndyCar program, aims for '17 500"the original"Harding Racing to add Texas, Pocono to schedule"the original"Sato signs with Andretti Autosport for 2017""INDYCAR: Aleshin in Doubt at SPM"the original"Long Beach notebook: JR Hildebrand breaks hand""Hildebrand cleared to return at Phoenix"the original"Bourdais to undergo surgery on multiple fractures""Aleshin loses Schmidt Peterson IndyCar ride""Saavedra in at SPM for Pocono, Gateway"the original"Bourdais to make return at Gateway"the original"The IndyCar Grand Prix no longer is sponsored by Angie's List""2017 IndyCar Series rulebook""2017 Verizon IndyCar Series Official Rulebook"Official websiteeeeee