Time-independent perturbation theory

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


In each of my QM books, they always say something like "we can write the perturbed energies and wavefunctions as"

E_n = E_n^{(0)} + \lambda E_n^{(1)} + \lambda^2 E_n^{(2)} + \cdots

|n\rangle = |n^{(0)}\rangle + \lambda |n^{(1)}\rangle + \lambda^2 |n^{(2)}\rangle + \cdots

without any justification. This is really not obvious to me and although it seems reasonable, it do not see why the perturbed energies and wavefunctions might not be something completely different like

E_n = E_n^{(0)} + \lambda E_n^{(1)} + \lambda^2 \log \left(E_n^{(2)}\right)^{-1}\sin E_n^{(2)} + \cdots

|n\rangle = |n^{(0)}\rangle + \lambda |n^{(1)}\rangle + \lambda^2 |n^{(2)}\rangle + \cdots

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Expanding the energies and wave functions as a function of the perturbation parameter is an iterative manner which is well behaved. The function you wrote for the energy has poles and in multivalued.
 
ehrenfest said:

Homework Statement


In each of my QM books, they always say something like "we can write the perturbed energies and wavefunctions as"

E_n = E_n^{(0)} + \lambda E_n^{(1)} + \lambda^2 E_n^{(2)} + \cdots

|n\rangle = |n^{(0)}\rangle + \lambda |n^{(1)}\rangle + \lambda^2 |n^{(2)}\rangle + \cdots

without any justification. This is really not obvious to me and although it seems reasonable, it do not see why the perturbed energies and wavefunctions might not be something completely different like

E_n = E_n^{(0)} + \lambda E_n^{(1)} + \lambda^2 \log \left(E_n^{(2)}\right)^{-1}\sin E_n^{(2)} + \cdots

|n\rangle = |n^{(0)}\rangle + \lambda |n^{(1)}\rangle + \lambda^2 |n^{(2)}\rangle + \cdots

Homework Equations


You are right that it's an assumption that is being made. The assumption is that the perturbation Hamiltonian is a small perturbation, which means that as lambda goes to zero, the energies and wavefunctions smoothly approach the unperturbed results. This assumption does fail in some cases (for example, trying to treat the Couloumb potential in Hydrogen as a perturbation would fail completely because the energy expansion would diverge in lambda which would signal the fact that the Coulomb potential has to be included to all orders so it cannot really be treated as a perturbation)
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top