Litle help with perturbation theory

baranas
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Why when we analyse time dependant 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 dependant 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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top