Why are unperturbed states valid basis for perturbed system?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a two-state quantum system described by unperturbed eigenstates and their interaction with an external perturbation, specifically z-polarized light. The original poster questions the validity of using the unperturbed states as a basis for the perturbed system, considering the potential for additional states to arise from the perturbation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the justification of using unperturbed states in the context of non-degenerate perturbation theory, questioning whether the original basis remains sufficient under perturbation. They discuss the implications of the dimensionality of the Hilbert space and the existence of additional eigenstates.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants raising questions about the assumptions underlying the perturbation theory and the nature of the states involved. Some provide insights into the mathematical framework, while others express skepticism about the physical implications of the perturbation.

Contextual Notes

There is an acknowledgment that the original Hilbert space may not encompass all possible states if the perturbation significantly alters the system. Participants note that the approximation of only two levels being relevant may not hold in all scenarios, suggesting a deeper exploration of the system's completeness.

bananabandana
Messages
112
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


So we have a two state system, with unperturbed eigenstates ## |\phi_{1}\rangle##, ## |\phi_{2}\rangle ##, and Hamiltonian ## \mathbf{\hat{H_{0}}}## - i.e ##\mathbf{\hat{H_{0}}}|\phi_{1}\rangle = E_{1}|\phi_{1}\rangle##
We shine some z-polarized light on the system. This gives us an interaction Hamiltonian:
$$\mathbf{\hat{H_{I}}} = -\mathbf{\hat{d_{z}}}\mathcal{E}cos(\omega t) $$
Where ## \mathbf{\hat{d_{z}}} ## is the dipole operator in the z direction - ##\mathbf{\hat{d_{z}}} = -e\mathbf{\hat{z}}##.

Foot (C.J Foot,Atomic Physics, OUP 2005) states without proof in Chapter 7 that:
"The wavefunctions at any instant of time [for the perturbed system] can be expressed as:
$$ \psi(\vec{r},t) = c_{1}(t) exp(-i\omega_{1}t) |\phi_{1}\rangle +c_{2}(t) exp(-i\omega_{2}t) |\phi_{2}\rangle $$


How do we know that the original basis - ##\{ |\phi_{1}\rangle , |\phi_{2}\rangle \}## is still a valid basis for the system in the case of the perturbation? Surely the perturbation could (potentially) increase the number of possible states of the system, so that our previous basis is no longer sufficient?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Can we justify this by referring back to non-degenerate perturbation theory - where the perturbed eigenstates are always linear superpositions of the unperturbed eigenstates (for first order). But... then, if this is the case, surely we should be careful to state that this formula is only a first order approximation, and not a general representation??

EDIT - and it makes physical sense that ## c_{1} = c_{1}(t) ## but where is that coming from?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bananabandana said:
EDIT - and it makes physical sense that ##c1=c1(t)c1=c1(t) c_{1} = c_{1}(t)## but where is that coming from?
If it makes physical sense, then that is where it is coming from. Physics is an empirical science.
Mathematically, the approach comes from the nature of vector spaces: so check - what is required for the old basis set to also be a basis for the new system?
 
Physically, it doesn't necessarily make sense that there isn't an extra state generated by this process?

Mathematically
- The basis ## \{ |\phi_{1}\rangle,|\phi_{2}\rangle \} ## is a valid basis for any state in a Hilbert space ## H ## of dimensionality 2. Therefore, so long as I know that only two eigenstates exist before and after the perturbation then the expression is fine.

So, if I write the total Hamiltonian, ##\mathbf{\hat{H'}}## as ## \mathbf{\hat{H'}} = \mathbf{\hat{H_{0}}} + \mathbf{\hat{H_{I}}} ##, then for Foot's expression to be valid it's a requirement that for the perturbed system we have eigenstates ## |\chi_{i}\rangle## such that:
$$ \mathbf{\hat{H'}} = (\mathbf{\hat{H_{0}}}+\mathbf{\hat{H_{I}}}) |\chi_{i}\rangle = E'_{i} | \chi_{i} \rangle $$
and ## |\chi_{i} \rangle \ \in \ \{ |\chi_{1}\rangle, |\chi_{2}\rangle\} ## - ##\mathbf{\hat{H'}}## must have two and only two (independent) eigenstates.

But how do I prove that the operator ## \mathbf{\hat{H'}} ## necessarily has this property?
 
Physically, it doesn't necessarily make sense that there isn't an extra state generated by this process?
Sure, you could have a process that increases the depth of the potential well by a significant amount, for example.
The method you are using here is called "perturbation theory" for a reason - what is special about modifications that count as perturbations?
 
bananabandana said:
- The basis ## \{ |\phi_{1}\rangle,|\phi_{2}\rangle \} ## is a valid basis for any state in a Hilbert space ## H ## of dimensionality 2. Therefore, so long as I know that only two eigenstates exist before and after the perturbation then the expression is fine.
If the dimensionality of the Hilbert space should change, it would mean that the original Hilbert space was not big enough to start with, that the description of the quantum system was incomplete, and there was a hidden degeneracy.

Note that in the example you are citing, it is an approximation that there are only two levels involved. In reality, there are many more levels, but it is assumed that two can be singled out and the physics will not be affected by the presence of the other levels. By construction, there can only be two levels in this system.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Simon Bridge

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K