Time-Independent Perturbation Theory

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the derivation of the second-order correction coefficients in Time-Independent Perturbation Theory as presented in the 2nd Edition of "Quantum Mechanics" by Bransden & Joachain. The equation in question, specifically equation 8.30, involves the term a_{nl}^{(2)} and its relationship with energy differences and matrix elements. The participants clarify that the sign of the term a_{nn}^{(1)}H_{ln}^{'} becomes positive when manipulated correctly, resolving the confusion regarding its sign. This conclusion aligns with the consensus among peers and the professor involved in the discussion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Time-Independent Perturbation Theory
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics concepts, particularly wave functions
  • Knowledge of matrix elements in quantum mechanics
  • Ability to manipulate mathematical equations involving energy levels
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of second-order corrections in Time-Independent Perturbation Theory
  • Explore the implications of matrix elements in quantum mechanics
  • Review the concepts of unperturbed wave functions and their expansions
  • Investigate the role of energy differences in perturbation theory calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in quantum mechanics, particularly those studying perturbation theory, as well as educators teaching advanced quantum mechanics concepts.

eep
Messages
225
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I'm working out the 2nd Edition of Quantum Mechanics by Bransden & Joachain and I'm a little puzzled by the sign of the last term in equation 8.30 on page 380, which reads...

<br /> a_{nl}^{(2)} = \frac{1}{E_n^{(0)} - E_l^{(0)}}\sum_{k{\neq}n} \frac{H_{lk}^{&#039;}H_{kn}^{&#039;}}{E_n^{(0)} - E_l^{(0)}} - \frac{H_{nn}^{&#039;}H_{ln}^{&#039;}}{(E_n^{(0)} - E_l^{(0)})^2} - a_{nn}^{(1)}\frac{H_{ln}^{&#039;}}{E_n^{(0)} - E_l^{(0)}}<br />

They are deriving the formula for the coeffecients of the 2nd order correction of the wave function expanded into the basis of the unperturbed wavefunctions. That is,

<br /> \psi_n^{(2)} = \sum_k a_{nk}\psi_k^{(0)}<br />

We have derived that...

<br /> a_{nl}^{(2)}(E_l^{(0)} - E_n^{(0)}) + \sum_kH_{lk}^{&#039;}a_{nk}^{(1)} - E_n^{(1)}a_{nl}^{(1)} = 0<br />

for l not equal to n.

Ignoring the other parts of the equation, we move the sum over to the other side by subtracting it, and we know from before that...

<br /> a_{nk}^{(1)} = \frac{H_{kl}^&#039;}{E_n^{(0)} - E_k^{(0)}}<br />

for k not equal to n. So for k equal to n we have the leftover term

<br /> a_{nn}^{(1)}H_{ln}^&#039;<br />

which has a minus sign in front of it when moved to the other side, so we have

<br /> a_{nl}^{(2)}(E_l^{(0)} - E_n^{(0)}) = -a_{nn}^{(1)}H_{ln}^{&#039;} - \sum...<br />

where I have ommited the rest of the sum and the other terms. Now, obviously, we can divide by (E_l^{(0)} - E_n^{(0)}), pull out a negative sign, and switch the order of the subtraction. This makes the overall term positive, does it not? The rest of the summation is not negative so I don't understand why this term would be...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, some other people seem to think it's a plus as well, including the professor. So that's that solved.
 

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K