Deriving the Solution to $$\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi^{*}}$$

  • Thread starter Thread starter Irishdoug
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    deriving Phi
Irishdoug
Messages
102
Reaction score
16
Homework Statement
We would like to find the lowest energy tight binding wavefunction of the form ##\ket{\Psi} = \sum_{n} \phi_{n} \ket{n}##
Relevant Equations
##H \phi = E \phi##

##\phi## is the vector of N co-efficients and H is the N by N matrix ##H_{n,m} = \bra{n} H \ket{m}##

We construct the energy ##E = \frac{\bra{\psi} H \ket{psi}}{\bra{\psi}\ket{\psi}}## and minimise it with respect to each ##\phi_{n}## to reproduce the eigenvalue equation ##H \phi = E \phi##
The solution can be viewed here on page 41

https://usermanual.wiki/Document/St...ford20University20Press202015.1463186034/view

What I have is

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi^{*}} (\frac{\sum_{n,m} \phi_{n}^{*} H_{n,m}\phi_{n}} {\sum_{n} \phi_{n}^{*} \phi_{n}}) = 0$$

I have access to the solution but I have no idea how this derivative is carried out. I have tried the product rule (where ##\phi_{n}## is considered constant) and quotient rule but neither work to give this solution:

$$\frac{\sum_{n} \phi_{m} H_{n,m}}{\sum_{p}\phi_{p}^{2}} - (\frac{\sum_{n,m} \phi_{n}^{*} H_{n,m}\phi_{n}} {\sum_{n} \phi_{n}^{*} \phi_{n}}) \frac{\phi_{n}}{\sum_{p}\phi_{p}^{*}\phi_{p}} = 0$$

Thankyou for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please show your work. It isn't very helpful to say "I tried X, but it didn't work." Think about how helpful it would be to you if someone replied with only "Well, I tried X and it did work."

What did you get when you differentiated the numerator with respect to ##\phi_n^*##?
 
The notation is messy and prone to mistakes. Write instead ##\mathbf{x} = (\phi_1, \dots, \phi_n)^T## as a column vector containing the numbers ##\phi_n## and write the energy as\begin{align*}
E(\mathbf{x}) = \frac{\mathbf{x}^{\dagger} H \mathbf{x}}{\mathbf{x}^{\dagger} \mathbf{x}}
\end{align*}Now you vary the vector ##\mathbf{x} \mapsto \mathbf{x} + \delta \mathbf{x}##, where ##\delta \mathbf{x} = (\delta \phi_1, \dots, \delta \phi_n)^T##, giving
\begin{align*}
\delta E \equiv E(\mathbf{x} + \delta \mathbf{x}) - E(\mathbf{x}) = \frac{(\mathbf{x}^{\dagger} + \delta \mathbf{x}^{\dagger})H(\mathbf{x} + \delta \mathbf{x})}{(\mathbf{x}^{\dagger} + \delta \mathbf{x}^{\dagger})(\mathbf{x} + \delta \mathbf{x})} - E(\mathbf{x})
\end{align*}Can you complete the proof by imposing that ##\delta E## vanishes to first order for all possible ##\delta \mathbf{x}##?
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top