Perturbation Theory/Harmonic Oscillator

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around perturbation theory applied to the harmonic oscillator, specifically focusing on the Hamiltonian that includes a perturbation term involving lowering and raising operators. The original poster is tasked with finding the ground state energy correction using second-order perturbation theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to expand lowering and raising operators in terms of quantum numbers and question how to apply the second-order energy correction formula. There is also exploration of whether to consider degenerate perturbation theory and how to handle operators in a multi-dimensional context.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights on the structure of the Hamiltonian and the implications of degeneracy. Some guidance is offered regarding the application of raising and lowering operators, but no consensus has been reached on the approach to take.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of perturbation theory, including the implications of degeneracy and the behavior of operators in multi-dimensional systems. There is an acknowledgment of the original poster's uncertainty regarding the application of the theory and the operators involved.

Void123
Messages
138
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am given the hamiltonian, where [tex]H^{^}_{0}[/tex] is that of the harmonic oscillator and the perturbation is (lambda)*(h-bar)*(omega)*[(lowering operator)^2 + (raising operator)^2]. I am asked to find the ground state, second-order approx. energy value.



Homework Equations



Second order eigenenergy equation.



The Attempt at a Solution



I have written out the whole hamiltonian. Do I need to expand the lowering-raising operators in terms of n? I am a bit lost on what to plug into the second order equation for the two wave functions m and n (which sandwich the Hamiltonian operator).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You know that the "meat" of the sandwich is the perturbing Hamiltonian,

[tex]H'=\hbar\omega(a_+^2+a_-^2)[/tex]

Since you are looking for the second order correction to the ground state, one of the "breads", say the bra, should be <0|. Suppose you were to write the other "bread" (the ket) as |n>. What do you get when you operate on that with a+2 and a-2? What does the resulting ket need to be in order not to have a zero matrix element?
 
What if I am dealing with degenerate perturbation theory? In the case of the harmonic oscillator, do I need to set up the matrix and find the eigenvalues or can I just take advantage of the lowering and raising operators acting on the eigenstate? Thanks.
 
What is your Hamiltonian? More to the point, is the ground state degenerate? In any case, "setting up the matrix" involves calculating matrix elements using the raising and lowering operators as I showed you. That you should do, degeneracy or no degeneracy.
 
I have a question though: if the harmonic oscillator is (isotropic), how would two (lowering and raising) operators multiply each other, assuming they are from two different dimensions (e.g. x and y). Would you 'go up or down the ladder' the same way one usually would except plug in the different n-values for x and y, accordingly?

In other words if you had [tex]a_{x} a_{y}[/tex], which are both lowering operators, would you go the typical route of bumping the eigenstate by |n-1>, |n-2>, etc. but plug in [tex]n_{x}[/tex] and [tex]n_{y}[/tex]?

The raising and lowering operators is still a fuzzy area with me.
 
Last edited:
That is why I asked you to tell me what your Hamiltonian looks like. If you have a two-dimensional isotropic Hamiltonian, you have degeneracies. However, if you write it in Cartesian coordinates, you can separate variables and you can treat each dimension independently. And yes, you get two ladders, one for x and one for y.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K