Quick Q: First order perturbation theory derivation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding a specific step in the derivation of first-order perturbation theory in quantum mechanics. The user struggles with manipulating expressions involving the first-order correction to the wavefunction, |\psi^{(1)}_{n}>, and the unperturbed Hamiltonian, H_0. Key points include the need to simplify terms by pulling constants out and correctly applying the Hamiltonian to the inner products. The user realizes that for the case when m = n, the inner product results in cancellation, leading to the conclusion that \langle\phi_n|\psi^{(1)}_n\rangle = 0. Ultimately, the user gains clarity after revisiting the problem, allowing for successful manipulation of the equations.
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!
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top