Applicability of perturbation theory

CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87
Consider some system in some initial state ##|k^{(0)}\rangle##. The probability that such a state makes a transition to some other state ##|m^{(0)}\rangle## can be computed to various orders in time dependent perturbation theory.

E.g the total first order probability that the system has made a transition from the initial state is $$P^{(1)}(t) = \sum_{m \neq k} p_{mk}^{(1)}(t)$$

For the perturbation theory to be valid, one requires that ##P^{(1)}(t) \ll 1##. Can someone explain why this is the case? Is it something to do with the fact that we require all the corrections to the transition probability to be small so that when we sum all further contributions, they converge to 1? (Assuming we also include the probability that the state does not transit in time ##t## and then the transition probability will be 1 so that the system is definitely in one state after time ##t##)

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the first order contribution alone is of significant order then the whole approximation scheme is unjustified.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Back
Top