- #1

BillKet

- 285

- 24

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- A
- Thread starter BillKet
- Start date

- #1

BillKet

- 285

- 24

- #2

BillKet

- 285

- 24

@Twigg do you have any idea what they are doing here?

- #3

DrClaude

Mentor

- 8,024

- 4,753

I am wondering if this analogous to calculating the AC Stark shift.

- #4

BillKet

- 285

- 24

From what they claim in the paper, that seems to be the case, but I still don't know how to derive this perturbation theory formula in general (for a 2x2 level system at least).I am wondering if this analogous to calculating the AC Stark shift.

- #5

Twigg

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 873

- 469

I don't think there is a direct formula. The way I was working it out was getting the spin-up and spin-down populations as a function of time from 2nd order TDPT, then taking the expectation value over the Hamiltonian.

If you wrote down the expectation value and substituted in the TDPT formulae for the perturbative corrections to the wavefunction, you would end up with a direct formula but it would be lengthy to the point of uselessness.

- #6

BillKet

- 285

- 24

That looks very tedious (unless I am doing something wrong), and it also requires doing several integrals (in this case they are easy but in general it can be very difficult, no?).

I don't think there is a direct formula. The way I was working it out was getting the spin-up and spin-down populations as a function of time from 2nd order TDPT, then taking the expectation value over the Hamiltonian.

If you wrote down the expectation value and substituted in the TDPT formulae for the perturbative corrections to the wavefunction, you would end up with a direct formula but it would be lengthy to the point of uselessness.

Also I am a bit confused about this. If I start in an eigenstate of the unperturbed Hamiltonian, say ##(1,0)##, after a time, t, to second order in PT I will be in a state ##c_a(t)(1,0)+c_b(t)(0,1)##. Now I would calculate the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in this state and get the energy. But is this state ##c_a(t)(1,0)+c_b(t)(0,1)## an eigenstate of the new Hamiltonian such that the expectation value can be interpreted as an energy? Shouldn't I diagonalize my time dependent Hamiltonian, get the eigenvectors, and then propagate them in time? Or are the 2 approaches equivalent?

Last edited:

Share:

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 467

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 103

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 433

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 283

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 162

- Replies
- 29

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 829

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 2K