QM time independent perturbation theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marco99
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mechanics Quantum
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on applying time-independent perturbation theory to a quantum mechanical system with degenerate energy levels. The user successfully calculates corrections for non-degenerate states but struggles with the degenerate case involving three energy levels. They find that the matrix representation of the perturbation Hamiltonian H' is diagonal in the unperturbed state basis, leading to confusion about the nature of the perturbed eigenstates. The user questions the interpretation of the perturbation term, suggesting a possible misunderstanding of its formulation. Clarification is sought on the relationship between the perturbation and the eigenstates in this context.
Marco99
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Hello everyone,
So I have a QM assignment in which I have a s=1/2 particle with an unperturbed hamiltonian H diagonal in the |l,l_{z}>|s, s_{z}> base of the form H = A*L^2 + B*S_{z} (with 0 < B << A), and a perturbation term H' of the form H'=const * < L | S >, which can be shown to be diagonal in the |l, s; j, j_{z}> base. I am asked to calculate the energy corrections for the three lowest energy levels in the presence of the perturbation, and I applied time independent perturbation theory.
Relevant Equations
None
The lowest two energy level corrections (l=0, s_{z}=-1/2 and l=0, s_{z}=1/2) are easy to work out since the eigenvalues are not degenerate and the unperturbed energy levels also happen to be eigenstates of H'.

However I have three degenerate energy levels for the third eigenvalue of the form |l=1, l_{z}=0, +1, -1>|s=1/2, s_{z}=-1/2>. The l_{z}=-1 case is trivial, since it corresponds to the |l=1, s=1/2; j=3/2, j_{z}=-3/2> state, which is also an eigenstate of H'.

The l_{z}=0 and l_{z}=1 case is less trivial, so I used time independent perturbation theory in the degenerate case to diagonalise the H' matrix in the unperturbed state base |l=1, l_{z}=0, +1>|s=1/2, s_{z}=-1/2>.

The thing is in this base H' is already represented by a diagonal matrix since, calling |n_0}> and |n_1}> the two unperturbed states with l_{z}=0 and l_{z}=1 and expressing these in the |j, j_{z}> base, it happens that the off-diagonal terms <n_0 | H' | n_1> = <n_1 | H' |n_0> = 0, because |j, j_{z}> states with different j_{z} values are orthonormal.

Which means that the unperturbed states |n_0> and |n_1> already correspond to the perturbed eigenstates, which makes no sense since these two are not H' eigenstates at all. What am I missing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I do not understand the perturbation "H'=const * < L | S >". Did you mean $$H'=\text{(const.)}~ \mathbf L\cdot \mathbf S~~?$$
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...