Fermi's golden rule derivation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of Fermi's golden rule, specifically examining the expressions for wavefunctions in quantum mechanics as presented in Mark Thomson's "Modern Particle Physics" and Leonard Susskind's lectures. The key equations discussed are equation (2.41) from Thomson's book and Susskind's representation of the wavefunction. The main point of contention is whether it is valid to change the time-independent coefficient αj(0) to a time-dependent coefficient αj(t) in the presence of an interaction Hamiltonian. The consensus is that these expressions are not equivalent when the potential is time-independent.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Mechanics fundamentals
  • Understanding of Hamiltonian operators
  • Familiarity with wavefunction notation
  • Knowledge of time-dependent perturbation theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Fermi's golden rule in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about time-dependent perturbation theory in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the implications of time-independent vs. time-dependent potentials
  • Review the mathematical formalism of wavefunctions and state vectors
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, physicists focusing on particle physics, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum theory.

-marko-
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I'm reading Modern Particle Physics by Mark Thomson and watching Susskind's lecture on QM. In Thompson's book, equation (2.41) the wavefunction is expressed in terms of complete set of states of the unperturbed Hamiltonian as
\Psi(\textbf{x}, t) = \sum_{k} c_k(t)\phi_k(\textbf{x})e^{-iE_kt}

Susskind explains the same thing and the result is
|\Psi(\textbf{x}, t)\rangle = \sum_{j} \alpha_j(0)e^{-iE_jt}|j\rangle

Is it correct to change
\alpha_j(0) \rightarrow \alpha_j(t)
and use
|\Psi(\textbf{x}, t)\rangle = \sum_{j} \alpha_j(t)e^{-iE_jt}|j\rangle
in the presence of an interaction Hamiltonian?

After introducing time-dependent coefficients αj, Susskind's and Thompson's expressions should be "equal", right?

Many thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't really get what you are trying to ask. The first and second equations are clearly inequivalent since the second only applies to time-independent potentials whereas the first is for more general potential. I don't know why you want to change from ##\alpha_j(0)## to ##\alpha_j(t)## if your potential is not a function of time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K