1
$\begingroup$

In Griffith's Quantum Mechanics book, when he tackles time-independent perturbation theory, he states that one can write the eigenfunctions of the perturbed system, $$ H = H^0 + \lambda H', $$ as a power series in $\lambda$, $$ \psi_n = \psi_n^0 + \lambda\psi_n^1 + \lambda^2\psi_n^2 + \cdots $$ I'm trying to understand this intuitively. I am guessing that this is some way of writing the Taylor expansion of $\psi_n$. Then I do indeed understand that summing up all the terms gives us the full eigenfunction to arbitrary precision.

I just can't see how the power series in the book is really a Taylor expansion. Given that this is time-independent, the eigenfunctions should be functions of $x$, and their general Taylor expansion should look like $$ \psi_n(x) = \psi_n(a) + \psi_n'(a)(x - a) + \frac{\psi_n''(a)}{2!}(x - a)^2 + \cdots. $$ He writes that $\psi_n^1$ is the first-order correction to the $nth$ eigenfunction, $\psi_n^2$ the second-order, and so on. Can this statement be reconciled with writing the corrections as $$ \psi_n^m(a) = \frac{1}{m!}\frac{d^m\psi_n(x)}{dx^m}\bigg\rvert_{x=a}, $$ such that the Taylor expansion becomes $$ \psi_n(x) = \psi_n^0(a) + \psi_n^1(a)(x - a) + \psi_n^2(a)(x - a)^2 + \cdots, $$ or what? I would still need to define something like $$ x - a \equiv \lambda $$ to get $$ \psi_n(x) = \psi_n^0(a) + \lambda\psi_n^1(a) + \lambda^2\psi_n^2(a) + \cdots, $$ but this forces some dependencies on $\lambda$ that isn't physically motivated, and screws up the relations between $x$, $a$ and $\lambda$ in the equation, so it seems like a stupid thing to do.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The eigenfunctions(eigenvectors are functions of $\lambda$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 12:08

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The perturbed functions are meant to be a Taylor expansions in $\lambda$, not in $x$. More completely it should be written as: $$\psi_n(x,\lambda) = \psi_n^0(x) + \lambda\psi_n^1(x) + \lambda^2\psi_n^2(x) + \cdots$$

So the $\psi_n^m(x)$ are the Taylor coefficients around $\lambda=0$. $$\psi_n^m(x) = \frac{1}{m!}\frac{d^m\psi_n(x,\lambda)}{d\lambda^m}\bigg\rvert_{\lambda=0}$$

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Why more completely? In general, the $\psi$s are just elements of some Hilbert space. You don't have to work on $L^2(\mathbb R)$. For example, one might consider a perturbative expansion on $\mathbb C^2$, when e.g. considering some spin-$1/2$ particle (and neglecting the spatial degrees of freedom). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 12:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TobiasFünke In general you are correct. But as Griffiths talked about eigenfunctions I assume he treated it in the $x$-representation, i.e. in $L^2(\mathbb R)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 12:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The whole point in perturbation theory is that the perturbation is small, i.e. $H' \ll H_0$. Therefore an expansion around $\lambda=0$ is the natural choice. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 12:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Depenau Yes, sure. But with a small $\lambda$ near zero we have a small perturbation. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Depenau Yes, you can think this way. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 13:09

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.