MisterX
- 758
- 71
The theorem states
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \lambda} = \langle \psi \mid \frac{\partial H}{\partial \lambda} \mid \psi \rangle
Where \mid \psi \rangle is an eigenket of H.
An example (given on Wikipedia) is to find \langle \psi \mid \frac{1}{r^2} \mid \psi \rangle for a Hydrogen eigenstate using this method with \lambda = \ell. It is straightforward to differentiate H with respect to \ell. However the common expression for energy only depends n. In the Wikipedia article there is
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \ell} = \frac{\partial E}{\partial n}\frac{\partial n}{\partial \ell}.
But, how do we make sense of \frac{\partial n}{\partial \ell}. Don't we normally (when \ell is not varied continuously) think of n as being somewhat independent of \ell?
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \lambda} = \langle \psi \mid \frac{\partial H}{\partial \lambda} \mid \psi \rangle
Where \mid \psi \rangle is an eigenket of H.
An example (given on Wikipedia) is to find \langle \psi \mid \frac{1}{r^2} \mid \psi \rangle for a Hydrogen eigenstate using this method with \lambda = \ell. It is straightforward to differentiate H with respect to \ell. However the common expression for energy only depends n. In the Wikipedia article there is
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \ell} = \frac{\partial E}{\partial n}\frac{\partial n}{\partial \ell}.
But, how do we make sense of \frac{\partial n}{\partial \ell}. Don't we normally (when \ell is not varied continuously) think of n as being somewhat independent of \ell?