Fermi's golden rule derivation

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 2K views
-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
[tex]\Psi(\textbf{x}, t) = \sum_{k} c_k(t)\phi_k(\textbf{x})e^{-iE_kt}[/tex]

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

Is it correct to change
[tex]\alpha_j(0) \rightarrow \alpha_j(t)[/tex]
and use
[tex]|\Psi(\textbf{x}, t)\rangle = \sum_{j} \alpha_j(t)e^{-iE_jt}|j\rangle[/tex]
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.