A mathematical issue raised from perturbation theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the assumptions and conditions under which time-independent perturbation theory in quantum mechanics can be applied, particularly focusing on the expansion of new states in terms of old states. Participants explore the implications of different Hilbert spaces and the completeness of eigenfunctions in various contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assumption that new states can always be expanded in terms of old states, citing the example of free-particle wavepackets and infinite square well eigenfunctions.
  • Another participant suggests that the assumption holds when wavefunctions have support over the region of interest, indicating that infinite square well wavefunctions cannot serve as a complete basis for plane waves but can for other functions with the same support.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that the Hilbert spaces for the Hamiltonians H_0 and H' are different, noting that the infinite potential outside the well restricts the Hilbert space to L²[a,b].
  • One participant mentions that perturbations V should not change the Hilbert space for the expansion to be valid, while also acknowledging that if V restricts the Hilbert space, the expansion may still work.
  • Another participant reiterates the importance of H_0 and V being defined on the same dense domain of the Hilbert space and that V is relatively compact with respect to H_0, referencing functional analysis texts for clarification.
  • Questions arise regarding the meaning of "with respect to" in the context of compactness, with a participant speculating on its relation to the ranges of V and H_0.
  • A later reply provides a definition of a linear operator being compact relatively to H, explaining the conditions under which this holds.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the assumptions in perturbation theory, with no consensus reached on the conditions under which the expansion of states is valid.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the definitions of Hilbert spaces and the nature of the perturbations, as well as the mathematical details surrounding compactness and relative compactness, which remain unresolved.

kof9595995
Messages
676
Reaction score
2
Take the usual time-independent perturbation theory in QM for example,H'=H_0+V, a basic assumption is we can expand the new states of H' in terms of the old ones of H_0, most of the textbooks justify this assumption by reasoning that the set of eigenfunctions of Hamiltonian is complete, regardless of the old H_0 or the new H'. But I guess this assumption can't be always true, for example, you can't possibly write a free-particle wavepacket in terms of eigenfuntions of infinite square well. So when can this assumption be applied exactly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I asked pretty much this same question https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=432504". I never completely got the answer I was looking for, but after then looking around a little bit more, it seems like the answer is that you can apply this assumption whenever the wavefunctions have support over the region you're interested in--that is, they are nonzero in that region. So an infinite square well has wavefunctions with vanishing support outside of the well, meaning they can't be a complete basis for plane waves, but they are a complete basis for anything else with support over the same region.

I may not have been 100% correct on all the mathematical details of that, but I think the basic argument is correct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with the infinite square well is that the Hilbert spaces on which H_0 and H' are defined are different. Mathematically you do not have an infinite potential outside the well but you set the wave functions to zero restricting the Hilbert space to L²[a,b]where a and b are the boundaries of the well.

But of course coming from the free particle Hilbert space (which is larger) you can write the eigenfunctions of H' as a Fourier integral which is equivalent to "summing" over the (generalized) eigenfunctions of the free particle.

If you consider only perturbtations V which do not change the Hilbert space then expanding the full solutions in terms of the free solutions is fine. In case V restricts the Hilbert space it should work as well.
 
kof9595995 said:
Take the usual time-independent perturbation theory in QM for example,H'=H_0+V, a basic assumption is we can expand the new states of H' in terms of the old ones of H_0, most of the textbooks justify this assumption by reasoning that the set of eigenfunctions of Hamiltonian is complete, regardless of the old H_0 or the new H'. But I guess this assumption can't be always true, for example, you can't possibly write a free-particle wavepacket in terms of eigenfuntions of infinite square well. So when can this assumption be applied exactly?

The right assumption is that H_0 and V are defined on the same dense domain of the Hilbert space, and that V is relatively compact with respect to H_0. These terms are explained in functional analysis texts, or in the math. physics books by Reed and Simon (Vol.1) or Thirring (Vol.3).
 
Thanks, I'll try to look at it.
 
A. Neumaier said:
The right assumption is that H_0 and V are defined on the same dense domain of the Hilbert space, and that V is relatively compact with respect to H_0. These terms are explained in functional analysis texts, or in the math. physics books by Reed and Simon (Vol.1) or Thirring (Vol.3).

What does "with respect to" mean in this context? The meanings of "compact",
"relatively compact subset", etc, are easy enough to find, but I didn't find the
"with respect to" bit. I'm guess it has something to do with range(V) being
relatively compact in range(H_0) ?
 
strangerep said:
What does "with respect to" mean in this context? The meanings of "compact",
"relatively compact subset", etc, are easy enough to find, but I didn't find the
"with respect to" bit. I'm guess it has something to do with range(V) being
relatively compact in range(H_0) ?

The linear operator V is compact relatively to H if for every bounded set B in the
Hilbert space H, the set {V psi | H psi in B} has a compact closure.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K