Suppose we are given the Hamiltonian $$\hat H = \hat H_0 + \hat H_p(\varepsilon) = \frac 1 {2m}(\hat p_1^2 + \hat p_2^2) +\frac 1 2 m \omega^2(\hat x_1^2 + \hat x_2^2) + \varepsilon m\omega^2\hat x_1\hat x_2 $$ and, after switching to CM coordinates, $$ \begin{split} \hat X= \frac {\hat x_1 + \hat x_2}{2}, &\qquad \hat \rho = \hat x_1 -\hat x_2, \\ \hat P = \hat p_1 + \hat p_2, &\qquad \hat \pi= \frac {\hat p_1-\hat p_2}{2}, \end{split} $$ we are asked to solve the corresponding eigenvalue problem $\hat H \psi = E \psi$ first exactly and then perturbatively. I managed to find the following exact (normalized) solution: $$ \begin{split} \psi_{00}(X,\rho) &= \Gamma_{00} \exp\left\{-\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(X^2\sqrt{1+\varepsilon} + \rho^2\sqrt{1-\varepsilon} \right) \right\}, \\ \Gamma_{00} &= \sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\pi\hbar}\sqrt[4]{(1+\varepsilon)(1-\varepsilon)}}, \\ \psi_{n\ell}(X,\rho) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n+\ell}n!\ell!}}\operatorname{He}_n\left(X\sqrt{\frac{2m\omega}{\hbar}\sqrt{1+\varepsilon}} \right) \operatorname{He}_\ell\left(\rho \sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\sqrt{1-\varepsilon}} \right) \psi_{00}(X,\rho), \\ E_{n\ell} &= \hbar \omega \left\{\left(n+\frac 1 2 \right) \sqrt{1+\varepsilon} + \left(\ell + \frac 12 \right)\sqrt{1-\varepsilon}\right\}, \end{split} $$ where $\operatorname{He}_q(\xi)$ is the usual $q$-th Hermite polynomial. Treating the problem perturbatively, again in the new coordinates, the analysis leads to the first-order energy corrections $$\delta^{(1)}E_{00} = 0, \qquad \delta^{(1)}E_{01} = -\frac 1 2 \varepsilon\hbar \omega, \qquad \delta^{(1)}E_{10} = \frac12 \varepsilon \hbar \omega, $$ which are perfectly compatible with the first-order expansion of the exact energies. However, the first-order correction to the unperturbed eigenstate $\psi_{00}^{(0)}$ (I haven't tackled the others) does not match what I get when expanding $\psi_{00}$ above to first order in $\varepsilon$. Why is this?

Calculations. The theory of stationary perturbations gives $$\delta^{(1)}\psi_{00} = \sum_{n,\ell\neq 0} \frac{\langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| \hat H_p \psi_{00}^{(0)} \rangle}{E_{00}^{(0)}-E_{n\ell}^{(0)}} \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}; $$ the matrix element in the numerator can be calculated through appropriate ladder operators $\hat A$ and $\hat \alpha$ (respectively for the unperturbed oscillator in $\hat X$ and $\hat \rho$) to be, knowing $\hat H_p = \varepsilon m \omega^2(\hat X^2 - \frac 1 4 \hat \rho^2)$ and remembering $(\hat a^\dagger + \hat a)^2 = (\hat a^\dagger)^2 + \hat a^2 + 2\hat a^\dagger \hat a + \hat 1$ when $[\hat a,\hat a^\dagger] = \hat 1$, $$\begin{split} \langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| \hat H_p \psi_{00}^{(0)} \rangle &= \varepsilon m \omega^2 \Bigg\{ \frac{\hbar}{4m\omega} \left( \langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| (\hat A^\dagger)^2 \psi_{00}^{(0)} \rangle + \underbrace{\langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| (\hat A)^2 \psi_{00}^{(0)} \rangle}_{=0} + 2\underbrace{\langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| \hat A^\dagger \hat A \psi_{00}^{(0)}\rangle}_{=0} + \underbrace{\langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| \psi_{00}^{(0)} \rangle}_{=0} \right) \\ &\qquad\qquad - \frac{\hbar}{4m\omega} \left( \langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| (\hat \alpha^\dagger)^2 \psi_{00}^{(0)} \rangle + \underbrace{\langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| (\hat \alpha)^2 \psi_{00}^{(0)} \rangle}_{=0} + 2\underbrace{\langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| \hat \alpha^\dagger \hat \alpha \psi_{00}^{(0)}\rangle}_{=0} + \underbrace{\langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| \psi_{00}^{(0)} \rangle}_{=0} \right) \Bigg\} \\ &= \frac{1}{4}\varepsilon \hbar \omega \left\{\sqrt 2 \langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| \psi_{20}^{(0)} \rangle - \sqrt 2 \langle \psi_{n\ell}^{(0)}| \psi_{02}^{(0)} \rangle \right\}, \end{split} $$ so that $$\delta^{(1)}\psi_{00} = \frac{\varepsilon \hbar \omega}{2\sqrt 2} \left[ \frac{1}{-\hbar\omega(2+0)}\psi_{20}^{(0)} - \frac{1}{-\hbar\omega(0+2)} \psi_{02}^{(0)} \right] = -\frac 1 8 \varepsilon \sqrt 2 (\psi_{20}^{(0)} - \psi_{02}^{(0)}).$$ However, $$ \begin{split} \psi_{00}(X,\rho) &= \left( \sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\pi\hbar}} + \mathscr O(\varepsilon^2) \right) \exp \left\{ - \frac{m\omega}{2\hbar} \left[X^2\left(1+\frac 1 2 \varepsilon\right) + \rho^2\left(1-\frac 1 2 \varepsilon\right) + \mathscr O(\varepsilon^2) \right] \right\} \\ &= \sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\pi\hbar}} \exp \left\{ - \frac{m\omega}{2\hbar} \left(X^2 + \rho^2 \right) \right\} \exp \left\{ - \frac{m\omega}{4\hbar} \varepsilon (X^2-\rho^2) \right\} + \mathscr O(\varepsilon^2) \\ &= \psi_{00}^{(0)}(X,\rho) \left\{1 - \frac{m\omega}{4\hbar} \varepsilon (X^2-\rho^2) + \mathscr O(\varepsilon^2) \right\} + \mathscr O(\varepsilon^2); \end{split}$$ hence the correction must be a linear combination of the unperturbed states $\alpha_{20}\psi_{20}^{(0)}+ \alpha_{02}\psi_{02}^{(0)}$ (which agrees with the perturbative result), in such a way that (substituting those states explicitly) $$ - \frac{m\omega}{4\hbar} \varepsilon (X^2-\rho^2) = \alpha_{20} X^2 \frac{m\omega}{\hbar} \sqrt{8} - \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\alpha_{20} + \alpha_{02} \rho^2 \frac{m\omega}{\hbar} \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\alpha_{02}. $$ But comparing coefficients leads to an (overdetermined) system of equations for the $\alpha$s, giving $$\alpha_{20}= - \frac{1}{8\sqrt 2}\varepsilon, \qquad \alpha_{02} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt 2} \varepsilon, $$ which disagrees with the perturbative prediction (apart from being inconsistent with the requirement $\alpha_{20} = -\alpha_{02}$ coming from the constant terms above). Where have I gone wrong?


1 Answer 1


The problem is that you haven't used a consistent normalization of $X$ and $\rho$. To see this explicitly, set $\epsilon = 0$. Then by symmetry, the ground state should only depend on the combination $x_1^2 + x_2^2$. But your ground state depends only on $X^2 + \rho^2$. This would have been correct, had you defined $$X = \frac{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \quad \rho = \frac{x_1 - x_2}{2}$$ but you instead defined one of them with a $1/2$ and one of them without it. This missing factor of $2$ squares into a factor of $4$, which is exactly the factor of $4$ you're missing at the end.

As a aside, it's generally a good idea to set $m = \omega = \hbar = 1$ at the beginning of calculations like these. The simpler form makes it much easier to spot issues, and you can always restore the factors with dimensional analysis.

  • $\begingroup$ I didn't define them this way, they were handed to me in the problem statement. Moreover, with that definition, $X$ is the center of mass of the two particles and $\rho$ is their relative displacement, whereas your definition (or the same with $\sqrt 2$ in the denominator, which simplifies calculations even further) does not have an equally direct physical meaning. $\endgroup$
    – giobrach
    Commented Jun 29, 2020 at 7:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @giobrach Definitely, you can do it with any set of definitions as long as you're consistent. $\endgroup$
    – knzhou
    Commented Jun 29, 2020 at 17:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.