5
$\begingroup$

So the argument goes that for a slightly perturbed Hamiltonian $$ H = H_0 + V, $$ there will be some exactly known states, $\left|\phi\right>$, solving $$ H_0\left|\phi\right> = E\left|\phi\right>, $$ and some later-time states that we are interested in, $\left|\psi\right>$, solving $$ (H_0 + V)\left|\psi\right> = E\left|\psi\right>, $$ such that we can write the LSE, $$ \left|\psi\right> = \left|\phi\right> + \frac{1}{E - H_0}V\left|\psi\right>, $$ which can be checked by multiplying through with $E - H_0$.

This is all fine to me, except the assumption that the energy $E$ for both states are equal. When we add a perturbation to the system, shouldn't the energies shift?

It seems Schwartz argue that, since the energies shift continuously as we turn on $V$, there will always be a $\left|\psi\right>$ with the same $E$ as some $\left|\phi\right>$. But how can we be sure that the potential doesn't shift the energy of some of the $\left|\psi\right>$'s up above the energies of all the $\left|\psi\right>$'s? Additionally, if we don't know which $\left|\phi\right>$ the $\left|\psi\right>$ we are interested in has equal energy to, what can the equation even be used for?

And also; why is the derivation $$ H_0\left|\psi\right> + V\left|\psi\right> = E\left|\psi\right> \quad\Rightarrow\quad H_0\left|\psi\right> - E\left|\psi\right> = - V\left|\psi\right> \quad\Rightarrow\quad \left|\psi\right> = \frac{1}{E - H_0}V\left|\psi\right> $$ not equally valid? Both this and LSE can't be right, can they?

Bonus question: If i use $\left<x\right|$ on the LSE, I get $$ \psi(x) = \phi(x) + \left<x\right|\frac{1}{E - H_0}V\left|\psi\right>. $$ If both $\psi(x)$ and $\phi(x)$ are (presumably) normalised wave-functions, how can one normalised wave-function be equal to another normalised wave-function plus something, and still be normalised? It seems like the probabilistic interpretation breaks here.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems Schwartz argue that - please give an exact reference... $\endgroup$ Jul 29, 2023 at 13:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isnt this just asuming the scattering to be elastic? $\endgroup$
    – user330563
    Jul 30, 2023 at 8:49

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

The usual situation is that V is short-ranged, so that at large separations $H\to H_0$, and $\psi(x) \to \phi(x)$. But the Schrodinger equation should be true for all $x$, so the energy is the same at short and long distances. The issue with normalization can be tricky since scattering states will well-defined momentum aren’t normalizable. But assuming we’re working with normalizable wave packets, the second term in the Lippman-Schwinger equation can produce something proportional to $\phi$. Specifically, it will cause destructive interference, pulling flux out of $\phi$ and putting it into other channels.

$\endgroup$

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.