Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What are the boundary conditions at $r=0$ for Schr$\ddot{\textrm{o}}$dinger's equation for a quantum particle in 2D polars $(r,\theta)$, with potential $U=0$ for $r<a$ and $U=\infty$ for $r>a$?

I've shown that the angular part of the wave-function is $e^{im\theta}$ where $m\in\mathbb{Z}$, and I've got an ODE for the radial part $R(r)$, with boundary condition $R(a)=0$.

Since $e^{im\theta}$ is not well-defined as $(r,\theta)$ approaches the origin, it looks as though we should have $R(0)=0\;$ to get a well-defined wave-function. But according to the question, the series expansion for $R(r)$ has arbitrary constant term and all odd-order terms zero. What sort of boundary conditions give this??

Many thanks for any help with this!

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Schrödinger's equation takes the form $$(\nabla^2 + k^2)\psi = 0,$$ where $k = \sqrt{2 m E/\hbar^2}$ inside the well. This is the Helmholtz equation. The solutions in polar coordinates are well-known, $${\psi}_{n}(r,\theta) = \left\{ \begin{array}[c]{l} {J_n}(k r) \\ {Y_n}(k r) \end{array} \right\} \{ e^{\pm i n\theta} \},$$ where $J_n$ and $Y_n$ are the Bessel functions of the first and second kind. (The braces are shorthand for "linear combinations of.") The boundary conditions are that $\psi$ be finite, vanish at $r=a$, and be single-valued. Therefore, the eigenfunctions are $$\psi_{n i}(r,\theta) = J_n\left(\alpha_{n i} \frac{r}{a}\right) (a_{n i}\cos n\theta + b_{n i}\sin n\theta),$$ where $n = 0,1,2,\ldots$ and where $\alpha_{n i}$ is the $i$th zero of $J_n$. (Energy quantization follows since $k = k_{n i} = \alpha_{n i}/a$.)

Notice that $J_n(0) = 0$ for $n\ge 1$. Furthermore, $\psi_0$ has no angular dependence. Thus, we need not impose any conditions at $r=0$. The solutions already "know" about this possible trouble and have taken care of it!

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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