2
$\begingroup$

In calculating the quadratic Stark effect on the ground state of hydrogen, we find that given unperturbed hamiltonian $$H^0=\frac{p^2}{2m}-\frac{Zq_e^2}{r}$$ with pertubation $$H^1=q_e\mathcal{E}z$$ then the second order correction to the ground state energy is $$E_{100}^{(2)}=-Ca_0^3\mathcal{E}^2$$ where $$C=\frac{q_e^2}{a_0^3}\sum_{n=2}^\infty\frac{|\langle n10|z|100\rangle|^2}{E_{1}-E_{n}}=\frac{2}{3a_0^2}\sum_{n=2}^\infty\frac{n^2}{n^2-1}\left(\int_0^\infty r^3R_{n1}(r)R_{10}(r)dr\right)^2=\sum_{n=2}^\infty\frac{2^9n^9(n-1)^{2n-6}}{3(n+1)^{2n+6}}$$ This sum is nasty. Wolfram Alpha gives $$C\approx C_{1000}=\sum_{n=2}^{1000}\frac{2^9n^9(n-1)^{2n-6}}{3(n+1)^{2n+6}}=1.8314\ldots$$ To calculate the error on this approximation, we note $$0<\frac{2^9n^9(n-1)^{2n-6}}{3(n+1)^{2n+6}}<\frac{2^9}{3e^4(n-1)^3}$$ so $$C-C_{1000}< \frac{2^9}{3e^4}\int_{999}^\infty\frac{1}{(x-1)^3}dx=\frac{2^8}{3(998)^2e^4}<1.57\times10^{-6}$$ so we can be certain about the digits shown. However, in Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed. pg. 462, Shankar avoids the trouble of calculating the radial integrals by introducing the operator $\Omega$ given by $$\Omega = -\frac{ma_0q_e\mathcal{E}}{\hslash^2}\left(\frac{r^2\cos\theta}{2}+a_0r\cos\theta\right),$$ which has the property that $$H^1=[\Omega,H^0].$$ Hence, $$E_{100}^{(2)}=\sum_{n=2}^\infty\frac{\langle 100|H^1|n10\rangle\langle n10|H^1|100\rangle}{E_n-E_1}\\ =\sum_{n=2}^\infty\frac{\langle 100|H^1|n10\rangle\langle n10|\Omega H^0-H^0\Omega|100\rangle}{E_n-E_1}\\ = \sum_{n=2}^\infty\langle 100|H^1|n10\rangle\langle n10|\Omega|100\rangle\\ = \langle H^1\Omega\rangle_{100}-\langle H^1\rangle_{100}\langle \Omega \rangle_{100}\\ = -\frac{9}{4}a_0^3\mathcal{E}^2$$ Now surprisingly, this gives $C=\frac{9}{4}=2.25$, which is well out of the error range of the value we calculated before. So my question is:

What went wrong? Why do we get two different values for $C$, when we use two equally valid methods? As far as I know, neither method makes assumptions that the other doesn't, so we should get the same answer both times.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is an old question, and maybe you figured this out a long time ago, but just in case: your calculation doesn't agree with the correct $-9/4$ result, because you only consider the sum over hydrogenic bound states, but not the integral over scattering states. See my answer for examples. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 19 at 17:21
  • $\begingroup$ @dennismoore94 I actually ended up asking the same question on MSE and then answered it myself once I realized the discrepancy was due to scattering states. I guess I forgot to close this question as well. I’ll go ahead and address that. $\endgroup$
    – Jacob
    Commented Oct 19 at 17:54

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I cross posted this question to MSE, where it got an answer (from myself). I realized the issue was that we were ignoring scattering states when calculating the second order perturbation, so we fall short of the true value $C = 9/4$.

$\endgroup$

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.