How is the Exponential Term Derived in Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of the exponential term $$e^{i(\omega_m - \omega_0 ) t' }$$ in time-dependent perturbation theory. It explains that the left exponential operates on the bra while the right exponential acts on the ket, leading to the transformation of the eigenstate ##\ket{m}## into its corresponding eigenvalue due to its status as an eigenstate of ##\hat H_0##. The participants are clarifying the mathematical steps involved in this process. Understanding this derivation is crucial for grasping the overall framework of time-dependent perturbation theory. The conversation emphasizes the significance of eigenstates in simplifying complex quantum mechanical expressions.
Rayan
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
A free particle of spin 1 is at rest in a magnetic field B, so that
$$ H_0 = −κ B_z S_z $$
where $S_z$ is the projection of the spin operator in the z direction. A harmonic perturbation
with frequency $ ω = κ B_z $ is applied in the x direction for a short time (one period of
oscillation only), so that the weak perturbation is
$$ V (t) = −κ B_x S_x sin(ωt) \, \, \, , \, \, \, for 0 < t < T = (2π/ω) $$
Relevant Equations
Calculate, using time-dependent perturbation theory the probability of observing $S_z = ℏ$ to the lowest non-vanishing order.
So I have the solution here and trying to understand what happened at the beginning of the second row! How did we get the exponential $$e^{i(\omega_m - \omega_0 ) t' }$$ ?

Screenshot 2024-02-18 at 10.37.18.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The left exponential acted on the bra and the right exponential acted on the ket. Since ##\ket{m}## is an eigenstate of ##\hat H_0## this replaces it by its corresponding eigenvalue.
 
  • Like
Likes Rayan and docnet
So is there some elegant way to do this or am I just supposed to follow my nose and sub the Taylor expansions for terms in the two boost matrices under the assumption ##v,w\ll 1##, then do three ugly matrix multiplications and get some horrifying kludge for ##R## and show that the product of ##R## and its transpose is the identity matrix with det(R)=1? Without loss of generality I made ##\mathbf{v}## point along the x-axis and since ##\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{w} = 0## I set ##w_1 = 0## to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K