I Understanding the Effects of Parities on the Stark Hamiltonian

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter kelly0303
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stark effect
kelly0303
Messages
573
Reaction score
33
Hello! If we have a 2 level system (say an atom) with energies ##0## and ##\Delta## and opposite parities, and we add an electric field, E, the hamiltonian would now look like ##H = H_0 +H_{Stark}## (where ##H_0## is the unperturbed Hamiltonian), which is equal to ##H=H_0-e\vec{r}\vec{E}##, where (assume we are having an electron in an atom) e is the electric charge and r is the position operator. If we assume that the field is in the z direction we get in the end ##H=H_0-ezE_z##. Now, if we calculate the expectation value of this Stark Hamiltonian in one of the 2 states we would have something like ##<+|-ezE_z|+>=-eE_z<+|z|+>=0##, where ##|+>## is the state of positive parity and we get zero because z is an odd parity operator. On the other hand the diagonal matrix element is not zero and we have ##<+|-ezE_z|->=d_zE_z##, where we define ##d_z = <+|-ez|->##. So in matrix form we get $$H =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & d_zE_z \\ d_zE_z & \Delta
\end{pmatrix}
$$
And from here we can diagonalize and get the new eigenstates and energy levels. Is this correct? Now my next question is, assume we have an electric field that depends on the position, such as ##E = E_0z##, pointing in the z direction. Now the hamiltonian would be ##H = H_0 - eE_0z^2##. But given that we have ##z^2## instead of ##z##, the parity changes, so in this case the Stark hamiltonian has even parity which means that ##<+|-eE_0z^2|->=0## and ##<+|-eE_0z^2|+>=E_0d_z^+## and ##<-|-eE_0z^2|->=E_0d_z^-##. So in matrix form we get
$$H =
\begin{pmatrix}
E_0d_z^- & 0 \\ 0 & \Delta + E_0d_z^+
\end{pmatrix}
$$
Is my derivation correct? So if we have a uniform electric field, we get off-diagonal term, but if we have a field varying linearly with z (or at least with an odd power of z), we get diagonal term, and the off-diagonals are unchanged. Is my conclusion correct? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That looks ok to me.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top