A Question about perturbation theory

Malamala
Messages
345
Reaction score
28
Hello! I have a situation where I have time dependent Hamiltonian, ##H_0(t)## which I can solve for exactly and thus get ##\psi_0## as its eigenfunction (given the initial conditions). Now, on top of this, I add a time independent Hamiltonian, ##H_1## much smaller than ##H_0##. How can I get the corrections to the wavefunction ##\psi_0## as a function of time, due to ##H_1##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe you will need to be explicit here. What are the two Hamiltonians and what does the solution look like?
 
hutchphd said:
I believe you will need to be explicit here. What are the two Hamiltonians and what does the solution look like?
My Hamiltonian, ##H_0(t)## is a large matrix (in principle I can truncate it, so for now let's say it's 10 x 10). I can solve the TDSE exactly using numerical methods and get the wavefunction ##\psi_0(t)##. I don't have an explicit analytical form, just 10 numbers as a function of time. What I want to know, is the probability of the system to be in a given level as a function of time (and I can easily extract that by squaring the number associated to that level out of the 10 calculated).

In principle, I can easily solve the TDSE for ##H_0(t) + H_1## and get the probability for the new system. However, ##H_1## is much much smaller than ##H_0## (it depends on a given parameter, call it ##\alpha##, which is much smaller than anything else in the problem). If I would solve the TDSE for ##H_0(t) + H_1## as a whole, it would be hard to see the effect of ##\alpha## on the probability I am interested in. So what I want is to somehow treat ##H_1## analytically (in some sort of perturbation theory), on top of the numerical solution obtained from ##H_0##, such that I have a better understanding of the physical effect ##\alpha## has on my system.

Basically, I don't want to know that the probability changed, let's say, from ##0.25## to ##0.250001##, but I want to have something like ##0.25 + f(\alpha,t)##.
 
What is a "level"? Exact definition, please.
 
hutchphd said:
What is a "level"? Exact definition, please.
In this case by "level" I mean one of the basis used. So being in the second level, corresponds to the square of the braket obtained from the actual wavefunction and (in the case of dimension 10): ##(0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0)##.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top