Recent content by Konte

I have a little question that answer can surely help me to understand more: how do we express the interaction term (in the Schrödinger equation) with electrostatic field in the "Stark effect" case when we treat the field as quantized field ? In semi-quantum case, it is only expressed as the...

Thank you, very interresting.

Hi everyone, It is about the quantization of the electromagnetic field. The expression of field E and B are defined with: -the annihilation a- and creation a+ operators, and the frequency ω. So my question is: how does these fields must be expressed if they where "static"? I mean, how the...

Ok. As you know, I'm just starting to read this book and learn slowly the formalism, I may need time. But I will be back soon to discuss deeply about. Sure. Thanks

In your reply, you seem like hinting that there is another formalis of resolvent or am I misunderstanding? Thanks for your answer. In reality, I am discovering this formalism of resolvent right now, while reading the Cohen Tannoudji books (interaction process between photons and atom- french...

I am back for some precisions. What do you mean by "nonperturbative"? Can I understand it by: the resolvent formalism always works for all ##H_{int}## even if it is as big and strong as ##H_0##? Thanks

What I wanted is to reassure myself about the scop of the resolvent formalism in comparison to other approach. Now, through your answer, I understand that resolvent formalism is not even an approximation but an exact method. I put aside all about numerical results, I am only interested in...

Hi everybody, While reading some quantum mechanics book, I met the resolvent formalism which is presented as more powerful than the pertubative approach. For a system with a hamiltonian ## H = H_0 + H_{int} ##, when the interaction part ## H_{int} ## is no more a pertubation but rather having...

Thanks for all of your answer. I have an ultimate question in the context of this thread: For a given hamiltonian ## H ## depending or not in time: formally, is there always a solution ##|\phi\rangle## which verify its eigenvalue equation?

Is there a mathematical theorem that supports this statement or is this only a kind of "feeling" that the physicist use to progress in his calculus?

Through your answer, I understand that there is no real "mathematical objection" on choosing basis states apart the confusion resulting from trying to find a physical meaning if the basis doesn't match with an observable... So, if I want now to measure linear momentum, how to proceed...

No, this is not the case that I want to discuss. I am talking about another case where the overall state of the actual system is not stationary state and I want to express it by using a basis other than the set of stationary states.

Thank you for clarifying my confused terminology. Considering those clarifications my last question stands.

So, I assume you mean that what I said (about linear combination of another complete set of function that form a vector space) is "mathematically correct" . But if this way of solving is correct, I have another question. Now, let say, I want to solve a complicated Schrödinger equation of a...

Hi everybody, For solving the time dependent Schrödinger equation ##H|\psi(t) \rangle = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi (t)\rangle##, I read in quantum mechanics books the assumption about the solution ##|\psi(t) \rangle## which is made of a linear combination of a complete set of the...