- #1
dRic2
Gold Member
- 890
- 225
- Homework Statement
- An Hamiltonian ##H## is characterized by a parameter ##\lambda(t)## which is varied with time. In the adiabatic approximation the solution is given by
$$\ket{\psi(t)} = e^{i\phi}e^{-i\gamma}\ket{n(t)}$$
with ##\phi## the Berry phase and ##\gamma## the dynamical phase.
Carrying the the adiabatic perturbation theory to the next order in ##\lambda##, that is ##\dot \lambda##, assume that the solution is given by:
$$\ket{\psi(t)} = e^{i\phi}e^{-i\gamma}[\ket{n(t)} + \dot \lambda \ket{\delta n}]$$
where ##\ket{\delta n}## is to be determined. We arlerady know that the solution satisfy the Schrodinger equation to the order zero in ##\dot \lambda##. Show that:
$$(E_n - H_{\lambda})\ket{\delta n} = -i \hbar (\partial_{\lambda} + i A_n) \ket{n}$$.
##A_n## is the Berry connection ##\bra{n} i \partial_{\lambda} \ket{n}##.
- Relevant Equations
- Berry phase $$\phi = \int_{t_0}^{t} d\tau A_n(\tau)$$
Dynamical phase $$\gamma = \int_{t_0}^{t} d\tau E_n(\tau)$$
If I plug the solution into the Schrodinger equation I get
$$(i \hbar \partial_t - H)\ket{\psi} = 0$$
Since I know that the zeroth-order expansion is lambda is already a solution I think this is equal to
$$(i \hbar \partial_t - H)e^{i\phi} e^{-i\gamma}\ket{\delta n} = 0$$
If now I carry on with the differentiation I get the solution, except for the fact that I have ##\delta n## everywhere, while on the right-hand side the should be a ##\ket{n}##. So, either my assumption is wrong (why?), or I am missing something. I've been thinking for 2 days...
(the ##\ddot \lambda## term is dropped)
Thanks,
Ric
$$(i \hbar \partial_t - H)\ket{\psi} = 0$$
Since I know that the zeroth-order expansion is lambda is already a solution I think this is equal to
$$(i \hbar \partial_t - H)e^{i\phi} e^{-i\gamma}\ket{\delta n} = 0$$
If now I carry on with the differentiation I get the solution, except for the fact that I have ##\delta n## everywhere, while on the right-hand side the should be a ##\ket{n}##. So, either my assumption is wrong (why?), or I am missing something. I've been thinking for 2 days...
(the ##\ddot \lambda## term is dropped)
Thanks,
Ric
Last edited: