Perturbation theory using Cohen-Tannoudji

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of stationary perturbation theory as presented in the Cohen-Tannoudji book. Participants are examining the mathematical formulation and implications of perturbation theory, particularly in the context of non-degenerate and degenerate eigenstates.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the notation used for the eigenvector |1> when projecting onto the non-degenerate eigenstate |φpi⟩, seeking clarification on the necessity of the index i.
  • Another participant points out that eigenvalues are not necessarily degenerate, referencing a specific line in the book to support this claim.
  • A participant expresses confusion about why the projection is made in the degenerate subspace when the book discusses a non-degenerate case.
  • One participant explains that the first-order eigenvector correction |1> is expanded in terms of a complete set of unperturbed energy eigenvectors, necessitating the use of the index i for labeling.
  • Another participant acknowledges understanding but critiques the book for not projecting directly onto the entire basis, suggesting that this would clarify the matrix formulations presented in the book.
  • A further elaboration indicates that while the non-degenerate case is a special instance of the degenerate case, the subtleties of degeneracy require careful consideration of which eigenvector can be perturbed, as perturbations might lift degeneracies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity of the book's presentation regarding the treatment of degenerate versus non-degenerate cases. There is no consensus on the best approach to project the eigenvectors in the context of perturbation theory.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential ambiguities in the book's treatment of eigenstates and perturbation theory, particularly regarding the notation and the implications of degeneracy. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and assumptions about the mathematical framework presented.

cire
I'm reading the Cohen-Tannoudji book and I found somthing I don't understand
in stationary perturbation theory.
the problem the Hamiltonian is split in the known part an the perturbation:
[tex] H=H_{o}+\lambda \hat{W}[/tex]
[tex] H_{o}|\varphi_{p}^{i}\rangle=E_{p}^{o}|\varphi_{p}^{i}\rangle[/tex] (1)
and we want to solve the problem:
[tex] H(\lambda)|\Psi(\lambda)\rangle=E(\lambda)\Psi(\lambda)\rangle[/tex] (2)
Expanding in [tex]\lambda[/tex] series equation (2) I get after equating each term:
[tex] zeroth: (H_{o}-E_{o})|0\rangle=0[/tex] (3)
[tex] first: (H_{o}-E_{o})|1\rangle+(\hat{W}-E_{1})|0\rangle=0[/tex] (4)
[tex] second: (H_{o}-E_{o})|3\rangle+(\hat{W}-E_{1})|2\rangle<br /> E_{2}|1\rangle-E_{3}|0\rangle=0[/tex] (5)

from normalizing the wave fuction order by order I get:
[tex] zeroth: \langle0|0\rangle=1[/tex] (6)
[tex] first: \langle0|1\rangle= \langle1|0\rangle=0[/tex] (7)
[tex] second: \langle0|2\rangle=<br /> \langle2|0\rangle=-\frac{1}{2}\langle1|1\rangle[/tex] (8)

Solution for the non-degenerated level[tex] H_{o}|\varphi_{n}^{o}\rangle=E_{n}^{o}|\varphi_{n}^{o}\rangle[/tex]
zeroth order:
[tex] E_{o}=E_{n}^{o}[/tex]
[tex] |0\rangle=|\varphi_{n}\rangle[/tex]
first order projecting (4) onto the vector [tex]|\varphi_{n}\rangle[/tex]
[tex] E_{n}(\lambda)=E_{n}^{o}+\langle\varphi_{n}|W|\varphi_{n}\rangle[/tex]
now this is the part that I don't understand:
when finding the eigenvector |1> the project equation (4) onto [tex]|\varphi_{p}^{i}\rangle[/tex] why the putting the supscript i if it is non-degenerated? :confused:
[tex]|\Psi_{n}(\lambda)\rangle=|\varphi_{n}\rangle+\sum_{p\neq<br /> n}\sum_{i}\frac{\langle\varphi_{p}^{i}|W|\varphi_{n}\rangle}{E_{n}^{o}-E_{p}^{o}}|\varphi_{p}^{i}\rangle[/tex]
see the book page 1101
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The eigenvalues are not necessarily degenerate. Read the line after equation (B-6) on page 1101.

Regards,
George
 
the book is talking about the non-degenerated case
[tex]H_{o}|\varphi_{n}\rangle=E_{n}^{o}|\varphi_{n} \rangle[/tex]
why projecting in the degenerate subspace [tex]\{|\varphi_{p}^{i} \rangle\}[/tex]eq B-6 ?
degenerace refers to the new perturbed energy? :confused: :confused:
 
The idea is to expand the first-order eigenvector correction |1> in terms of a complete set of states that consists of unperturbed energy eigenvectors, i.e., to arrive at equation (B-10). Since the only eigenvalue that is known to be non-degenerate is [itex]E_{0}^{n}[/itex], the index [itex]i[/itex] has to used in the labelling of this complete set of states.

Regards,
George
 
I got it, thanks but the book is misleading why not to project directly in the entire basis (degenerated in general) and get a matrix in B-5 and B-10 and B-11 all make sense, then the non-degenare case the matrix shrink to one element ...
:biggrin:
 
cire said:
I got it, thanks but the book is misleading why not to project directly in the entire basis (degenerated in general) and get a matrix in B-5 and B-10 and B-11 all make sense, then the non-degenare case the matrix shrink to one element ...
:biggrin:

Of course the non-degenerate case is a special case of the degenerate case. But the degenerate case is slightly more subtle: you cannot just take ANY eigenvector of the unperturbed system and "perturbe it": the perturbation could lift the degeneracy (partly or entirely). So you first have to find out WHICH eigenvector you can perturbe in the first place (in fact, the original, say, 5-dimensional, set of eigenvectors with identical E0 will split in, say, a 2 dimensional set with one Ea, and 3 non-degenerate vectors with Eb, Ec and Ed respectively in first order ; the Ea can still potentially split at higher order).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
781
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K