Sakurai Problem 1.9: Eigenvalues of Hamiltonian

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daverz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sakurai
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian presented in a quantum mechanics context, specifically referencing a problem from Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics." The original poster questions the nature of the eigenvalues, noting that they are negative and whether this is appropriate for a Hamiltonian.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster questions whether a Hamiltonian should only have non-negative eigenvalues and considers the implications of a potential typo in the Hamiltonian's formulation. Some participants discuss the arbitrary nature of energy zero points in quantum mechanics and how they affect the sign of eigenvalues.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the implications of energy eigenvalues in quantum mechanics, with some providing insights into the arbitrary choice of energy reference points. The original poster reflects on their understanding and acknowledges a need for review, while another participant offers clarifying information about bound and scattering states.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes considerations about the nature of eigenvalues in quantum mechanics and the assumptions regarding the Hamiltonian's formulation. There is an acknowledgment of the potential for confusion regarding the signs of eigenvalues and the implications for physical interpretation.

Daverz
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
80
Of Modern Quantum Mechanics. This starts with a Hamiltonian

[itex] H = a(|1\rangle\langle 1| - |2\rangle\langle 2| + |1\rangle\langle 2| + |2\rangle\langle 1|)[/itex]

This has eigenvalues [itex]\pm a\sqrt{2}[/itex]. Shouldn't a Hamiltonian have only non-negative eigenvalues? If the sign in front of the [itex]|2\rangle\langle 2|[/itex] is [itex]+[/itex] instead of a [itex]-[/itex] you get eigenvalues [itex]0[/itex] and [itex]2a[/itex], which makes more sense (assuming a is real and positive). So might this be a typo, or am I wrong in general about the eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian? Or am I taking this toy "Hamiltonian" too seriously?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In non-relativistic quantum mecanics, the signs of energy eigenvalues depend on where the zero for energy is (arbitrarily) chosen. For example, in the harmonic oscillator, the zero is chosen at the equilibrium position, and the energies are all positve, while in the hydrogen atom, the zero is chosen at r = infinity. For hydrogen, bound states have negative energies, while scattering states have positive energies because they can "make it to infinity".

Both of these zeros are arbitary and chosen for convenience.

What is necessary, is that the spectrum of energies has a lower bound, e.g., -13.7 ev for hydrogen. If no lower bound exists, then the system can spiral down to lower and lower energies, and, in the process, release an infinite amount of energy.
 
George Jones said:
For hydrogen, bound states have negative energies, while scattering states have positive energies because they can "make it to infinity".

Well, duh, how did I forget bound states? Well, I did. That's not even QM, the bound "states" in Newtonian mechanics have negative energy. Thanks for jogging my fuzzy memory. Guess I have a lot of review to do.
 
Last edited:
Nevermind. I figured it out.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K