Question regarding time independent perturbation theory

Kidiz
Messages
21
Reaction score
4
Let's say we've a system which can be described by the Hamiltonian:

$$H_0 = \dfrac{p^2}{2m} + V(x)$$

Now suppose we introduce a perturbation given by:

$$H_1 = \lambda x^2$$

Our total hamiltonian:

$$H = H_0 + H_1 = \dfrac{p^2}{2m} + V(x) + \lambda x^2 $$

Normally, the perturbation doesn't have the factor ##\lambda## inside of it. It's usually written has ##H = H_0 + \lambda H_1##, which gives us the energy ##E = E_n ^{0} + \lambda E_n ^{1} + \lambda ^2 E_n ^{2}##.

Now, my question is:

Is the energy given by:

$$E = E_n ^{0} + \lambda E_n ^{1} + \lambda ^2 E_n ^{2}$$

even if we've ##\lambda## inside the ##H_1##? Or should it be something like ##E = E_n ^{0} + E_n ^{1} + E_n ^{2}##, since the ##E_n ^{1}## and ##E_n ^{2}## will have ##\lambda## as a factor?PS: My title is horrible, but I couldn't think of something better.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kidiz said:
Or should it be something like ##E = E_n ^{0} + E_n ^{1} + E_n ^{2}##, since the ##E_n ^{1}## and ##E_n ^{2}## will have ##\lambda## as a factor?
This. If the parameter that makes the perturbation small is inside the Hamiltonian (as it often is), then there is no λ appearing explicitly.
 
  • Like
Likes Kidiz
DrClaude said:
This. If the parameter that makes the perturbation small is inside the Hamiltonian (as it often is), then there is no λ appearing explicitly.

However, it's important to remember that the sequence ##E^0_n + E^1_n + E^2_n + ...## will still have increasing powers of ##\lambda## in each term. This fact, plus the fact that ##\lambda## is small, is what makes each term of the sequence get progressively smaller, which is the thing that makes perturbation theory work in the first place. Because of how central this concept is, it's often more informative to pull out the factor ##\lambda## from the interaction term and put it explicitly into the sequence, so that it's more easily seen which parameter you are expanding the series in terms of. That's why you hear people describe a QED calculation with terms like "to fourth order in ##e##", even though the electric charge ##e## is built directly into the QED Hamiltonian.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Kidiz
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
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top