Question on Time-Independent Perturbation Theory

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of Equation (A.4) in time-independent perturbation theory, specifically regarding the normalization of the eigenstate ##|\psi_j\rangle##. Participants express confusion about how the equation follows from taking the inner product of the eigenstate with itself, particularly questioning the assumption of known perturbative corrections. There is a consensus that the textbook's approach seems to presuppose normalization without adequately justifying why certain cross terms must vanish. The need for a clear argument demonstrating that the summations on the right side equal zero is emphasized. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities and potential gaps in the explanation of perturbation theory in the text.
cwill53
Messages
220
Reaction score
40
Homework Statement
I just need a quick check on something from Appendix A in "Nanostructures and Nanotechnology" by Douglas Natelson.
Relevant Equations
$$H|\psi \rangle=E|\psi \rangle$$
$$H^0|\psi^0 \rangle=E^0|\psi^0 \rangle$$
$$E_j=E^0_j+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda ^iE^i_j$$
$$|\psi _j\rangle=|\psi^0 _j\rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda ^i|\psi^i _j\rangle$$
image_6487327 (15).JPG

image_6487327 (16).JPG


I'm currently reading this passage to review perturbation theory. Just before Equation (A.4), this passage tells me to take the inner product of the proposed eigenstate ##|\psi _j\rangle## with itself. Writing this out, I got:

$$1=\left \langle \psi _j| \psi _j\right \rangle=\left ( |\psi^0 _j\rangle+\sum_{k=1}^{n}\lambda ^k|\psi^k _j\rangle \right )^\dagger\left ( |\psi^0 _j\rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda ^i|\psi^i _j\rangle \right )$$

$$= \left ( \langle\psi^0 _j|+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left (\lambda ^i \right )^*\langle\psi^i _j| \right )\left ( |\psi^0 _j\rangle+\sum_{k=1}^{n}\lambda ^k|\psi^k _j\rangle \right )$$

$$=\left \langle \psi^0 _j| \psi^0 _j\right \rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda ^i\left \langle \psi^0 _j| \psi^i _j\right \rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left (\lambda ^i \right )^*\langle\psi^i _j|\psi^0 _j\rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}(\lambda ^i)^*\lambda ^k\left \langle \psi^i _j| \psi^k _j\right \rangle$$

I'm not sure how Equation (A.4) follows from this though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think (A.4) does not follow from the previous equations. It's just the usual orthonormal conditions on a basis set.
 
Grelbr42 said:
I think (A.4) does not follow from the previous equations. It's just the usual orthonormal conditions on a basis set.
Okay, so basically you’re saying we impose the first equation in (A.4) and that’s what yields the second one? The reason that it’s confusing to me is that when the passage asks us to take the inner product, it makes it seems as if we know something about the perturbative corrections to the state function a priori.
 
cwill53 said:
I'm not sure how Equation (A.4) follows from this though.
I'm with you on this. I think the textbook's author begs the question. He says "let's check normalization" and then apparently uses normalization to claim that the cross terms on the right hand side must vanish because the leading term on the right is equal to 1. One should consider $$\begin{align} \left \langle \psi _j| \psi _j\right \rangle & =\left \langle \psi^0 _j| \psi^0 _j\right \rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda ^i\left \langle \psi^0 _j| \psi^i _j\right \rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left (\lambda ^i \right )^*\langle\psi^i _j|\psi^0 _j\rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}(\lambda ^i)^*\lambda ^k\left \langle \psi^i _j| \psi^k _j\right \rangle \nonumber \\
& = 1+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda ^i\left \langle \psi^0 _j| \psi^i _j\right \rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left (\lambda ^i \right )^*\langle\psi^i _j|\psi^0 _j\rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}(\lambda ^i)^*\lambda ^k\left \langle \psi^i _j| \psi^k _j\right \rangle \nonumber \end{align}$$and argue why the summations on the right hand side add up to give zero. I don't believe there is such an argument. See discussion here. Note the explicit use of the normalization constant ##N(\lambda)## in the end.
 
Thread 'Minimum mass of a block'
Here we know that if block B is going to move up or just be at the verge of moving up ##Mg \sin \theta ## will act downwards and maximum static friction will act downwards ## \mu Mg \cos \theta ## Now what im confused by is how will we know " how quickly" block B reaches its maximum static friction value without any numbers, the suggested solution says that when block A is at its maximum extension, then block B will start to move up but with a certain set of values couldn't block A reach...
TL;DR Summary: Find Electric field due to charges between 2 parallel infinite planes using Gauss law at any point Here's the diagram. We have a uniform p (rho) density of charges between 2 infinite planes in the cartesian coordinates system. I used a cube of thickness a that spans from z=-a/2 to z=a/2 as a Gaussian surface, each side of the cube has area A. I know that the field depends only on z since there is translational invariance in x and y directions because the planes are...
Thread 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
Back
Top