Degenerate perturbation theory (Sakurai's textbook)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of degenerate perturbation theory as presented in Sakurai's textbook, specifically focusing on the manipulation of equations related to the perturbed Hamiltonian and the projection operators involved. Participants are seeking clarification on the derivation of specific formulas and the implications of including certain terms in the equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation involving the perturbed Hamiltonian and seeks help in reaching a specific formula (5.2.5) from another equation (5.2.4).
  • Another participant suggests multiplying by the inverse of a term, provided it exists, to manipulate the equation further.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the presence of an extra projection operator (P_1) in the denominator of the formula (5.2.5) and questions whether it might be a typographical error.
  • Several participants discuss the equivalence of different forms of the equation, emphasizing the properties of the projection operator (P_1) and its idempotency.
  • Concerns are raised about the ordering of operators in expressions, with one participant asserting that the non-commutativity of certain terms necessitates careful arrangement.
  • Another participant clarifies that while including the extra P_1 is not strictly necessary, it is beneficial for ensuring hermiticity and proper action within the projected subspace.
  • There is a question regarding the implications of including or excluding the extra P_1 in terms of operator commutation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and implications of including the extra projection operator (P_1) in the equations. While some argue for its inclusion for clarity and hermiticity, others question its necessity and raise concerns about potential typographical errors in the textbook. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correctness of the formulas and the role of the projection operator.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion hinges on the manipulation of specific mathematical expressions and the properties of projection operators, which may depend on the definitions and assumptions made in the context of degenerate perturbation theory.

hokhani
Messages
601
Reaction score
22
In the theory of degenerate perturbation in Sakurai’s textbook, Modern Quantum Mechanics Chapter 5, the perturbed Hamiltonian is H|l\rangle=(H_0 +\lambda V) |l\rangle =E|l\rangle which is written as 0=(E-H_0-\lambda V) |l\rangle(the formula (5.2.2)). By projecting P_1 from the left (P_1=1-P_0 and P_0 is projection operator onto the degenerate subspace):

-\lambda P_1 V P_0|l\rangle +(E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V)P_1|l\rangle=0 (5.2.4)

Then from this, the formula below is obtained:

P_1|l\rangle =P_1 \frac{\lambda}{E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V P_1}P_1 V P_0|l\rangle (5.2.5)

But I never can reach to (5.2.5) from (5.2.4). Could anyone please help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Multiply (5.2.4) by (E−H0−λP1V)-1, provided it exists.
 
dextercioby said:
Multiply (5.2.4) by (E−H0−λP1V)-1, provided it exists.
Thanks, But it gives
P_1|l\rangle =\frac{\lambda P_1 V P_0}{(E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V)}|l\rangle which is not the same as (5.2.5). Could you please guide me completely?
 
Put now P_1 on both sides to the left and use that this is a projector (idempotent).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Right, Thanks. But all my problem is with the extra P_1in the denominator of (5.2.5). Where does it come from? In my idea, it seems to be a mistyped mistake. Also I think the formula (5.2.15) is mistyped because the sum hasn't to be over the degenerate space! However I am not confident about my idea (I have also seen exactly those formula in the new version of the book, 2011).
 
Last edited:
-\lambda P_1 V P_0|l\rangle +(E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V)P_1|l\rangle=0 (5.2.4)

This is equivalent to

-\lambda P_1 V P_0|l\rangle +(E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V P_1)P_1|l\rangle=0

because

P_1^2=P_1

since it is a projection operator.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vineyo and hokhani
Avodyne said:
-\lambda P_1 V P_0|l\rangle +(E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V)P_1|l\rangle=0 (5.2.4)

This is equivalent to

-\lambda P_1 V P_0|l\rangle +(E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V P_1)P_1|l\rangle=0

because

P_1^2=P_1

since it is a projection operator.
Thank you and dextercioby. It still remains another question. Why don't we regard the relation as P_1|l\rangle =\frac{\lambda P_1 V P_0}{(E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V)}|l\rangle? Is it necessary to include the extra P_1?
 
hokhani said:
Why don't we regard the relation as P_1|l\rangle =\frac{\lambda P_1 V P_0}{(E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V)}|l\rangle?
This is not a valid expression, because P_1 V P_0 and (E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V)^{-1} do not commute. They must be written in a definite order.

hokhani said:
Is it necessary to include the extra P_1?
Strictly speaking, it's not necessary. However, it is helpful, because P_1 V P_1 is hermitian, and clearly acts only in the subspace projected by P_1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vineyo
Avodyne said:
This is not a valid expression, because P_1 V P_0 and (E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V)^{-1} do not commute. They must be written in a definite order.

Excuse me. I don't understand your above sentence. Do you mean that if we use extraP_1 in the denominator, thenP_1 V P_0 and (E-H_0-\lambda P_1 V)^{-1} would commute?
 
  • #10
No, they don't commute whether or not you include the extra P_1, so they must be written in a particular order.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vineyo and hokhani

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K