Is Schiff's Quantum Mechanics wrong? Degenerate stationary perturbation theory.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of degenerate stationary perturbation theory as presented in Schiff's "Quantum Mechanics" (3rd edition, 1968). A participant questions the sign in the discriminant of the secular equation, suggesting it should be positive rather than negative. The consensus is that the original text is correct, and the participant is encouraged to re-evaluate their algebra, specifically regarding the treatment of matrix elements in the Hamiltonian. The key takeaway is that the term is indeed ignored as it is second-order, affirming Schiff's formulation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, specifically perturbation theory.
  • Familiarity with Hamiltonian operators and their matrix representations.
  • Knowledge of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions in quantum systems.
  • Basic proficiency in algebraic manipulation of quantum mechanical equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of degenerate perturbation theory in quantum mechanics.
  • Study the implications of matrix elements in Hamiltonian perturbations.
  • Learn about the significance of the discriminant in quantum mechanical equations.
  • Explore advanced topics in perturbation theory, including non-degenerate cases.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, particularly those focusing on perturbation theory and its applications in theoretical physics.

ddd123
Messages
481
Reaction score
55

Homework Statement



However incorrect the text seems to me, I suspect there's something I'm missing, since it's a renowned text: Schiff - Quantum Mechanics 3rd edition 1968.

The topic is degenerate stationary perturbation theory. In this example there's only two eigenfunctions associated with the same eigenvalue of the unperturbed Hamiltonian. The perturbed energy states are found by solving the secular equation we know well from the general theory.

Schiff says this at page 249:

bhdH2cJ.png


The problem lies in the minus sign within the discriminant:

<m|H'|m> - <l|H'|l>

According to me, it should be plus.

Homework Equations



( <m|H'|m> - W_1 ) a_m + <m|H'|l> a_l = 0
<l|H'|m> a_m + ( <l|H'|l> - W_1 ) a_l = 0

The discriminant seems to have (<m|H'|m> + <l|H'|l>)^2 as the first term instead of (<m|H'|m> - <l|H'|l>)^2 .

Thus, for the degeneracy to be NOT removed at the first order, the matrix elements must be <l|H'|m> = - <m|H'|l> , and not the same as the text states. Unless I'm wrong, which I suspect.

The Attempt at a Solution



Clearly the term <l|H'|m><m|H'|l> within the discriminant is ignored as it is second-order.

However I put it, the Hamiltonian matrix elements and the perturbed energy value to be solved appear with the same sign respectively, in the secular equation. Moreover, as stated in the text, the diagonal values of the perturbed Hamiltonian matrix are real, and they are the values we are looking at.

Didn't use latex because the equations are very basic. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no error. Redo the algebra carefully, and you will see that no term is dropped and that Schiff uses
$$
\left(H_{mm}' + H_{ll}' \right)^2 - 4 H_{mm}' H_{ll}' = \left( H_{mm}' - H_{ll}' \right)^2
$$
 
Ah, damn, I had a prejudice on the dropping of that term. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
46
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K