QM: position and spin dependent potential

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a quantum mechanics problem involving a spin 1/2 particle described by a Hamiltonian that includes both position and spin-dependent terms. The participants are exploring the implications of the Hamiltonian's structure and how to approach solving for the energy eigenvalues.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand how to diagonalize the Hamiltonian and whether it is appropriate to mix spin and position variables. Some participants suggest representing the wavefunction as a two-component vector and discuss the resulting equations derived from the Hamiltonian.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning the validity of calculating determinants of operators and considering alternative representations of the wavefunction. There is a suggestion to avoid introducing energy eigenvalues prematurely and to focus on the structure of the equations instead.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the treatment of operators in the context of the determinant and the implications of using different bases for the spin component. Participants are navigating the complexities of the Hamiltonian without reaching a consensus on the best approach yet.

Heirot
Messages
145
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A spin 1/2 particle of mass m is described by the Hamiltonian: H = p^2/(2m) + 1/2 mw^2 x^2 + g * x * sigma_x, where sigma_x is one of the Pauli matrices.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I have no idea where to start. It's obvious that the harmonic oscillator part of H should be multiplied by unit matrix. Does this mean that I need to diagonalize the whole matrix H? That would give me two eigenvalues containing operators p and x. When I solve the two equations, I should get the energies for spin up and spin down? I'm not certain is it ok to mix the spin and position variables in such a way.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think of the wavefunction as a two-component vector

[tex]\begin{pmatrix} \psi_+(x) \\ \psi_-(x) \end{pmatrix}.[/tex]
 
Yes, that's exactly what I did and it leads to the following equations:
[tex](\frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{m\omega^2}{2}x^2-E_+)\Psi_+ + gx\Psi_-=0 \qquad<br /> (\frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{m\omega^2}{2}x^2-E_-)\Psi_- + gx\Psi_+=0[/tex]

Now, for this system to be consistent, it's necessary for the determinant to vanish. But here the coefficients are not numbers but operators! I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to calculate the determinant of an operator?
 
Heirot said:
Yes, that's exactly what I did and it leads to the following equations:
[tex](\frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{m\omega^2}{2}x^2-E_+)\Psi_+ + gx\Psi_-=0 \qquad<br /> (\frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{m\omega^2}{2}x^2-E_-)\Psi_- + gx\Psi_+=0[/tex]

Now, for this system to be consistent, it's necessary for the determinant to vanish. But here the coefficients are not numbers but operators! I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to calculate the determinant of an operator?

You still want to solve

[tex]H \psi = E \psi,[/tex]

so don't introduce [tex]E_\pm[/tex] at this point. I was a bit hasty to introduce [tex]\psi_\pm[/tex]. Things will be cleaner if you use [tex](\Psi_1, \Psi_2)[/tex], since we're not working in the basis that diagonalizes [tex]\sigma_x[/tex]. All together, we'll have

[tex](\frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{m\omega^2}{2}x^2-E)\Psi_1 + gx\Psi_2=0 \qquad<br /> (\frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{m\omega^2}{2}x^2-E)\Psi_2 + gx\Psi_1=0.[/tex]

Don't worry about any determinants yet, just consider the sum and difference of these equations and find the spectrum. The determinant of those equations is zero whenever [tex]E=E_\pm[/tex], the energy eigenvalues, so it's consistent.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K