I Representing a Hamiltonian in an operator form

Click For Summary
To represent a Hamiltonian in operator form, one must first identify the specific form of correction terms, such as the Darwin correction, which can often be expressed in a Hilbert space of wave functions. The process involves projecting the abstract eigenstate onto the same basis as the Hamiltonian and calculating the relevant matrix elements. Operators like the Darwin term and spin-orbital interactions can present challenges, particularly regarding how to treat terms like 1/r^3, which may not be analytic functions. These correction terms are derived from exact operator forms, indicating a reduction in precision, and may not always have corresponding operator representations. For a deeper understanding of these concepts, references such as "Physics of Atoms and Molecules" and "Modern Quantum Mechanics" provide valuable insights.
nashed
Messages
56
Reaction score
5
Given a Hamiltonian in the position representation how do I represent it in operator form? for example I was asked to calculate the expectancy of the Darwin correction to the Hydrogen Hamiltonian given some eigenstate (I think it was |2,1> or something bu that doesn't matter right now), now I know that the Hamiltonian is given in the position basis and as such I calculated the relevant integral, but the thing is that I wanted to try and do it algebraically and didn't know how to proceed...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Hamiltonian is always given in an operator form, i.e. it is a (rigged)-Hilbert space operator written as a function (typically algebraic) of other operators, such as position, momentum, angular momentum (including spin), electric charge, parity, etc. Only the Hilbert space is mapped to a certain space (a function space) so that the Hamiltonian and all other observables could be represented by differential operators. The so-called algebraic methods work by assuming no "projection onto a function space" takes place. This works for any Hamiltonian with (a) discrete (part of a) spectrum. This is easiest to see for the harmonic oscillator, but it also works for the discrete spectrum of the H-atom Hamiltonian.

1st step: identify the exact form of the Darwin correction term. IIRC, this is expressible only in a Hilbert space of wave functions, i.e. the "projection onto a function space" ##|\psi\rangle \rightarrow \langle x|\psi\rangle ## already took place.
2nd step: project the abstract vector ##|2,1\rangle## onto the same basis as the Hamiltonian was projected.
3rd step: compute the matrix elements.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
dextercioby said:
The Hamiltonian is always given in an operator form, i.e. it is a (rigged)-Hilbert space operator written as a function (typically algebraic) of other operators, such as position, momentum, angular momentum (including spin), electric charge, parity, etc. Only the Hilbert space is mapped to a certain space (a function space) so that the Hamiltonian and all other observables could be represented by differential operators. The so-called algebraic methods work by assuming no "projection onto a function space" takes place. This works for any Hamiltonian with (a) discrete (part of a) spectrum. This is easiest to see for the harmonic oscillator, but it also works for the discrete spectrum of the H-atom Hamiltonian.

1st step: identify the exact form of the Darwin correction term. IIRC, this is expressible only in a Hilbert space of wave functions, i.e. the "projection onto a function space" ##|\psi\rangle \rightarrow \langle x|\psi\rangle ## already took place.
2nd step: project the abstract vector ##|2,1\rangle## onto the same basis as the Hamiltonian was projected.
3rd step: compute the matrix elements.
Thanks for the help, but in the case of the Darwin term it's given by some constant times a delta function, how am I supposed to get the operator form of this expression? another example is the spin-orbital interaction, it's given by 1/r^3 times some constant time the angular momentum operator dotted with the spin operator, how am I supposed to treat the 1/r^3 part? as a scalar or as an operator, also if it's an operator how do I treat as it is not an analytic function of R
 
nashed said:
another example is the spin-orbital interaction, it's given by 1/r^3 times some constant time the angular momentum operator dotted with the spin operator, how am I supposed to treat the 1/r^3 part?
Some times, operators only have a simple form in a particular representation, and one has to use that representation to get the effect of the operator on a particular ket.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
nashed said:
Thanks for the help, but in the case of the Darwin term it's given by some constant times a delta function, how am I supposed to get the operator form of this expression?
Is it not ##\delta(\hat{\mathbf r})##?
nashed said:
Thanks for the help, but in the case of the Darwin term it's given by some constant times a delta function, how am I supposed to get the operator form of this expression? another example is the spin-orbital interaction, it's given by 1/r^3 times some constant time the angular momentum operator dotted with the spin operator, how am I supposed to treat the 1/r^3 part? as a scalar or as an operator, also if it's an operator how do I treat as it is not an analytic function of R
There is a good discussion on how these various correction terms were derived in appendix of the book Physics of Atoms and Molecules by B. H. Bransden and C. J. Joachain. The fact that they are correction terms means that some degree of exactness have been reduced out of the original exact, operator forms. Therefore, they do not necessarily have the corresponding operator form. The exact treatment of relativistic effects in hydrogen-like atoms can be found in the 2nd edition of Modern Quantum Mechanics by Sakurai and Napolitano.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and DrClaude
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...