Quick question regarding a step in a bra ket derivation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rwooduk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bra ket Derivation
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 1K views
rwooduk
Messages
757
Reaction score
59
In class we went through the derivation of the energy of a perturbed system, I've dug my old notes out and found a bra ket derivation of the same thing, there's just one step that doesn't look right and was wondering if someone could tell me if its a misprint or actually correct (and why).

[tex]E_{n}^{1}\left \langle \Psi _{k}^{0} |\Psi _{n}^{0} \right \rangle = E_{n}^{0}\delta _{kn}[/tex]

im assuming its a misprint, but then its presented in the final solution.i.e. you need everything in terms of [tex]E_{n}^{0}[/tex] for it to work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rwooduk said:
In class we went through the derivation of the energy of a perturbed system, I've dug my old notes out and found a bra ket derivation of the same thing, there's just one step that doesn't look right and was wondering if someone could tell me if its a misprint or actually correct (and why).

[tex]E_{n}^{1}\left \langle \Psi _{k}^{0} |\Psi _{n}^{0} \right \rangle = E_{n}^{0}\delta _{kn}[/tex]

im assuming its a misprint, but then its presented in the final solution.i.e. you need everything in terms of [tex]E_{n}^{0}[/tex] for it to work.

Indeed, ##\left \langle \Psi _{k}^{0} |\Psi _{n}^{0} \right \rangle = \delta _{kn}## so what you say should hold. Without seeing the full derivation and knowing exactly what is being argued, it is difficult to tell though.
 
Thanks for the reply! I managed to borrow my freinds scanner and have attached the derivation. I've put a red arrow (2nd file) which indicates the problem / misprint. As you can see you need it as printed to get alpha k n.

edit yes its a misprint, the term goes to zero in the following step, must be going blind! thanks for the help anyway!
 

Attachments

  • img002.jpg
    img002.jpg
    38.8 KB · Views: 468
  • img001.jpg
    img001.jpg
    37.5 KB · Views: 511
  • img003.jpg
    img003.jpg
    9.6 KB · Views: 491
Last edited: