I Degenerated perturbation theory

Lucas-
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I don't understand why we cannot obtain perturbative correction to a specific eigenstate in the degenerated case (ie. |2s>)
Hello,
In the case of Stark effect for example, one may find the correction for the |1s> state easily by applying non degenerated perturbation theory. However in the degenerated case it's seems as though we can only treat the whole n=2 level for example and not individual eigen states. That, I don't understand as, in reality we could make 2s hydrogen atom and place them in an electric field. What would happen ? Why can't we get let's say the first order |2s> correction ?
When we do the usual setup, we find the common eigenkets in the degenerate subspace of the original hamiltonian and the perturbation and their associated eigen values.
We observe linear combination of eigenkets yet, they don't seem to depend on the field intensity, so this would mean that when I turn the perturbation off, If, let's say I started with a |2s> hydrogen I would keep the superposition ? Shouldn't it go back to |2s> ?

I'm a bit confuse and I would appreciate it if someone could enlighten me !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mordred said:
Look into parity and the linear Stark effect in regards to degenerated perturbation

See here
https://bohr.physics.berkeley.edu/classes/221/1112/notes/stark.pdf

Section 19 goes into detail on 2s
So if I understand correctly, we find a new basis in which the perturbation is diagonal and when we want a specific ket we can write it in this new basis and we'll get the energy shift we want when we turn on the perturbation ?
 
In essence yes but extra care must be dealt with. You may or may not have noted that the Stark effect is described by Old Quantum Mechanics using the Bohr model. There is a further detail to add to your statement above. "With standard first-order degenerate perturbation theory the Hamilton operator is diagonal in parabolic coordinates but not in spherical coordinates between the perturbed and unperturbed relations. "

However numerous problems with the Stark effect gets resolved using the Schrodinger equations and wave mechanics.
A good coverage of these details can be found here.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5333

The above quotation is directly from said article.

Key note the two Stark effects are linear (first order) and quadratic (parabolic)
 
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
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...
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top