I 2nd Order Perturbation Theory Energy Correction

electrogeek
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone,

I'm struggling with the proof for the second order energy correction for perturbation theory when substituting in the first order wavefunction. I have attached an image of my current proof for it below, but I'm not sure whether this is the correct approach for it (the H's in the calculations below are hamiltonian operators)! I'm still quite new to using Dirac notation for these calculations so thought I should double-check it.

Cheers!

Screenshot 2020-03-28 at 13.10.16.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You seem to have the right idea. Be careful you don't take objects outside of sums when they have the sum index (you have done this in your derivation). Second, check your use of the complex conjugate.
##\langle\psi|\hat{A}|\chi\rangle^*=\langle\chi|\hat{A}^{\dagger}|\psi\rangle##
 
  • Like
Likes electrogeek and vanhees71
Thank you for the help! I've now got to this stage which I've attached below instead of taking the ket out of the summation like I did previously:

Screenshot 2020-03-28 at 15.39.06.png


But I'm confused why taking the complex conjugate of the first term in the numerator isn't just swapping around the terms in the bra and the ket?
 
Last edited:
Alright, good. I think you've ironed out the calculational problems.

electrogeek said:
But I'm confused why taking the complex conjugate of the first term in the numerator isn't just swapping around the terms in the bra and the ket?

When the operator sandwiched between the bra and ket is self-adjoint ##A^{\dagger}=A##, which is true for the Hamiltonians you are concerned with, then complex conjugating is "just swapping" the terms around. However, just because an operator is self-adjoint and has real eigenvalues that does not mean that a generic term ##\langle\psi|\hat{H}|\chi\rangle## is real.
 
Haborix said:
Alright, good. I think you've ironed out the calculational problems.
When the operator sandwiched between the bra and ket is self-adjoint $A^{\dagger}=A$, which is true for the Hamiltonians you are concerned with, then complex conjugating is "just swapping" the terms around. However, just because an operator is self-adjoint and has real eigenvalues that does not mean that a generic term ##\langle\psi|\hat{H}|\chi\rangle## is real.

Ah brilliant! Thank you very much for all the help. :)
 
  • Like
Likes Haborix
My pleasure, happy studying!
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top