Litle help with perturbation theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around time-dependent perturbation theory and degenerate perturbation theory in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the assumptions regarding the diagonal elements of the perturbation matrix and the treatment of degenerate states in the context of unperturbed wavefunctions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the diagonal elements of the matrix are assumed to be zero in time-dependent perturbation theory.
  • Others suggest that the assumption is based on the idea that the eigenstates of the unperturbed Hamiltonian form a basis for the Hilbert space.
  • A participant points out that in degenerate perturbation theory, only the wavefunctions of degenerate states from the unperturbed system are considered, while non-degenerate states are excluded.
  • Another participant clarifies that the non-degenerate states are not entirely skipped but rather an additional condition is derived that allows the perturbation procedure to proceed with only the degenerate states.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of degenerate and non-degenerate states in perturbation theory, indicating that multiple competing views remain without a consensus.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in perturbation theory, particularly concerning the treatment of wavefunctions and the implications of excluding non-degenerate states.

baranas
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Why when we analyse time dependent perturbation theory, we take that the diagonal elements of matrix <i|W(t)|j> are equal to zero?
Why in degenerate perturbation theory we assume that perturbed wavefunctions of degenerate states can be expressed in the base of unperturbed wavefunctions of degenerate states and deny other functions?



P.S. Sorry for my English
 
Physics news on Phys.org
baranas said:
Why when we analyse time dependent perturbation theory, we take that the diagonal elements of matrix <i|W(t)|j> are equal to zero?
Why in degenerate perturbation theory we assume that perturbed wavefunctions of degenerate states can be expressed in the base of unperturbed wavefunctions of degenerate states and deny other functions?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think the answer is:
"because we're assuming that the set of all eigenstates of the
unperturbed Hamiltonian is a basis for the Hilbert space".

(If that doesn't make sense, then I guess I didn't understand
the question properly.)
 
strangerep said:
I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think the answer is:
"because we're assuming that the set of all eigenstates of the
unperturbed Hamiltonian is a basis for the Hilbert space".

No, the problem is that in degenerate perturbation theory we take the basis for our perturbed state function only the wave-functions of degenerate states from unperturbed system and skip others, which belong to nendegenerate states.

H0\phi0n=E0n\phi0n

Assume that we have r degenerate states E0f\rightarrow\phi0fa, with a=1,2,3...r. The question is why do we assume, that a wave-function after perturbation will be in the form
\Psina=\sumcb\phi0fb and skip the part \sumcn\phi0n of nondegenerate functions
 
baranas said:
No, the problem is that in degenerate perturbation theory we take the basis for our perturbed state function only the wave-functions of degenerate states from unperturbed system and skip others, which belong to nondegenerate states.

In Ballentine, "QM - A Modern Development", sect 10.5, pp284-285, one starts with a full set of (unperturbed) states, with an additional label to represent any degeneracies. Then one derives an equation involving only the degenerate unperturbed states belonging to a
particular unperturbed energy. [See Ballentine's eq(10.92) and discussion leading to it.]

So we haven't "skipped" the others. They're still there, but we derived an extra
condition that allows the perturbation procedure to go ahead.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K