Quick Q: First order perturbation theory derivation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of first order perturbation theory in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the correction to the wavefunction. The original poster expresses confusion regarding a particular step in the derivation process involving the application of operators on wavefunctions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the meaning of the wavefunctions involved, questioning whether they represent eigenfunctions of the unperturbed Hamiltonian. There is discussion about the manipulation of terms in the perturbation expansion and the implications of certain assumptions, such as the case when m equals n.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on simplifying expressions and evaluating terms in the perturbation expansion. The original poster has made progress in understanding the derivation but continues to seek clarification on specific aspects of the process.

Contextual Notes

There is an acknowledgment of the distinction between the unperturbed Hamiltonian and the perturbation Hamiltonian, as well as the importance of orthogonality in the context of the wavefunctions involved.

RadonX
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Going over and over the perturbation theory in various textbooks, I feel that I've NEARLY cracked it. However, in following a particular derivation I fail to understand a particular step. Could anyone enlighten me on the following?

Multiply |\psi^{1)_{n}> by\sum_{m}|\phi_{m}><\phi_{m}| to solve for |\psi^{(1)}_{n}> the 1st order correction to the wavefunction:

Homework Equations



NA

The Attempt at a Solution




Easy peasy... I start off with;

\sum_{m}|\phi_{m}><\phi_{m}|\psi^{(1)}_{n}> = |\psi^{(1)}_{n}>
\sum_{m}<\phi_{m}|\psi^{(1)}_{n}>|\phi_{m}> = |\psi^{(1)}_{n}>

Wait, then the solution suggests 'Multiply 1st order correction by <\phi_{m}| :
So I do;

<\phi_{m}|H_{0}|\psi^{(1)}_{n}> + <\phi_{m}|W|\phi_{n}> = <\phi_{m}|E^{(0)}_{n}|\psi^{(1)}_{n}> + <\phi_{m}|E^{(1)}_{n}|\phi_{n}>

Which, if I've done that first step correctly, should be manipulated easily to their answer:

<\phi_{m}|\psi^{(1)}_{n}> = \frac{<\phi_{m}|W|\phi_{n}>}{E^{(0)}_{n} - E^{(0)}_{m}}

But how? There's something about when m = n, terms cancel out. But I feel this is the important bit I'm not grasping.

I should perhaps also point out that obviously H_0 is the unperturbed hamiltonian while W is the perturbation hamiltonian but I'm sure that if you're in a position to answer this you'd already have figured that one out! :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does |\phi_n\rangle represent? Are those the eigenfunctions of the unperturbed Hamiltonian?
 
diazona said:
What does |\phi_n\rangle represent? Are those the eigenfunctions of the unperturbed Hamiltonian?

Yep, I think so.
I think they could be expressed |\psi_n^{(0)}>
(That's if I'm understanding the perturbation theory correctly? That'd be the zeroth order approximation of the perturbed Hamiltonian, ie. UNperturbed yes?
 
OK, that makes sense. I wasn't sure if you were using that letter to mean something else.

Anyway, you got
\langle\phi_m|H_0|\psi^{(1)}_n\rangle + \langle\phi_m|W|\phi_n\rangle = \langle\phi_m|E^{(0)}_n|\psi^{(1)}_n\rangle + \langle\phi_m|E^{(1)}_n|\phi_n\rangle
by acting on the first-order terms in the perturbation expansion with \langle\phi_m|. Go through each of the four terms in that expression and simplify them by pulling constant factors out to the front. You should also be able to evaluate \langle\phi_m|H_0. Then rearrange to solve for \langle\phi_m|\psi^{(1)}_n\rangle, under the assumption E_m \neq E_n (which implies m\neq n).

For the case m = n, youl need to use a different argument to show that \langle\phi_n|\psi^{(1)}_n\rangle = 0 (at least to first order).
 
Thank you very much!
After your response I made a little headway on it late last night but in my tiredness began to worry myself over a problem that didn't exist!
For the first term, although I saw where operating H_0 on \langle\phi_m| would give me my E_m^{(0)} term, I mistakenly kept trying to write that if it operated on the |\psi_n^(1)\rangle I would get an eigenvalue of E_n^{(0)}. Which would of course cancel with my right hand side term... causing all sorts of trouble.
Fortunately, with a bit of sleep and breakfast, I spotted that one!

So now I have;
E_m^{(0)}\langle\phi_m|\psi_n^{(1)}\rangle + \langle\phi_m|W|\phi_n\rangle = E_n^{(0)}\langle\phi_m|\psi_n^{(1)} + 0 <(as the last term is the inner product of orthogonal terms)
All of which is easily manipulated now to get my answer!

Thank you diazona!
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K