In the following expression can $\epsilon$ be a matrix?

$$ (H + \epsilon H_1) ( |m\rangle +\epsilon|m_1\rangle + \epsilon^2 |m_2\rangle + \dots) = (E |m\rangle + \epsilon E|m_1\rangle + \epsilon^2 E_2 |m_2\rangle + \dots) ( |m\rangle +\epsilon|m_1\rangle + \epsilon^2 |m_2\rangle + \dots) $$


So in quantum mechanics we generally have a solution $|m\rangle$ to a Hamiltonian:

$$ H | m\rangle = E |m\rangle $$

Now using perturbation theory:

$$ (H + \epsilon H_1) ( |m\rangle +\epsilon|m_1\rangle + \epsilon^2 |m_2\rangle + \dots) = (E |m\rangle + \epsilon E|m_1\rangle + \epsilon^2 E_2 |m_2\rangle + \dots) ( |m\rangle +\epsilon|m_1\rangle + \epsilon^2 |m_2\rangle + \dots) $$

I was curious and substituted $\epsilon$ as a matrix:

$$ \epsilon = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right) $$

where $\epsilon$ now, is the nilpotent matrix, we get:

$$ \left( \begin{array}{cc} H | m \rangle & 0 \\ H_1 |m_1 \rangle + H | m\rangle & H |m_1 \rangle \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} E | m \rangle & 0 \\ E_1 |m_1 \rangle + E | m\rangle & E |m_1 \rangle \end{array} \right)$$

Which is what we'd expect if we compared powers of $\epsilon$'s. All this made me wonder if $\epsilon$ could be a matrix? Say something like $| m_k\rangle \langle m_k |$ ? Say we chose $\epsilon \to \hat I \epsilon$

then there exists a radius of convergence. What is the radius of convergence in a general case of any matrix?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The idea of making a quantity arbitrarily small is not exclusive to a number (you need to ask yourself, essentially what does it mean to be small?). In general, if you have a normed space the norm induces a metric on it, which gives you a notion of "distance" among its elements, so it makes sense to ask for this distance to decrease or be arbitrarily small. The space of matrices is just a particular case of this general setting, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_norm $\endgroup$ – hjhjhj57 Jan 26 '16 at 22:40

I would say there's nothing preventing you from using a matrix as perturbation of a matrix equation as long as you let the limit of the norm converge to $0$.


$\epsilon$ is not generally used as a matrix. When matrices are needed, as you will notice from your example, epsilon is usually set beside the matrices of concern as a scalar which indicates that one is infinitesimally close to the origin (or zero) in whichever space you seek to be perturbing.


Yes and No. When I say yes I mean it is possible in several ways. But it does not make sense.

As usual for a physicist you did not specify what the space is in which your states (kets) live and thus not what the $H$ and $H_1$ are. But of course they are meant to be operators which you can consider to be generalizations of matrices to infinite dimensions. So when you assume $\epsilon$ to be a matrix you could as well absorb this into $H_1$.

Further you put $\epsilon$ to be a constant matrix. Then you can just leave the $\epsilon$ away. The epsilon is there to control the perturbation $H_1$. If you set $\epsilon$ to be a constant you directly solve the problem.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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