0
$\begingroup$

Suppose we compute an expectation value of $r_{12} r_{13}^{-1}$ over a wave function $\phi_p (1) \otimes \phi_q(2) \otimes \phi_r (3)$, we denote it as $$\langle pqr | r_{12} r_{13}^{-1} |pqr \rangle. \tag{1}$$

We can insert a completeness relation $\sum_{\kappa \lambda \tau} | \kappa(1) \lambda(2) \tau(3) \rangle \langle \kappa(1) \lambda(2) \tau(3) | = 1 $ on Eqn. (1)

Therefore, $$ \sum_{\kappa \lambda \tau} \langle pqr | r_{12} | \kappa \lambda\tau \rangle \langle \kappa \lambda\tau | r_{13}^{-1} | pqr\rangle = \sum_{\kappa \lambda \tau} \langle pq | r_{12} | \kappa \lambda \rangle \delta_{r\tau} \langle \kappa \tau | r_{13}^{-1} | p r\rangle \delta_{\lambda q} = \sum_\kappa \langle pq| r_{12} |\kappa q \rangle \langle \kappa r | r_{13}^{-1}| pr \rangle \tag{2} $$ We rename $\langle \kappa(1) r(3) | r_{13}^{-1}| p(1)r(3) \rangle$ as $$\langle\kappa(1) r(2) | r_{12}^{-1}| p (1) r(2) \rangle \equiv \langle \kappa r | r_{12}^{-1} | pr \rangle \tag{3}$$

Eqn. (2) becomes $$ \sum_\kappa \langle pq| r_{12} |\kappa q \rangle \langle \kappa r | r_{12}^{-1}| pr \rangle \tag{4} $$ If we use $\sum_{\kappa} |\kappa \rangle \langle \kappa | = 1$ on (4), we find $$ \langle pq| r_{12} |q \rangle \langle r | r_{12}^{-1}| pr \rangle \tag{5} $$

It looks like (1) $\neq $ (5). But where things get wrong? Part of (4) is $|\kappa(1) \rangle \otimes |q(2) \rangle \langle \kappa(1) | \otimes \langle r(2) |$, that justifies the usage of $\sum_{\kappa} |\kappa \rangle \langle \kappa | = 1$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Eq. $(5)$ does not make sense at all, mathematically. (at least in the usual understanding of the notation). $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27 at 12:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Seems you're just lost in notation; there is no paradox. If you have 3 particles, you can't conflate their Hilbert spaces. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ Up to (4) seems ok, numerically. Step (3) is just renaming variable. So Eqn. (4) expresses 3 particles into two-particle operations. Eqn. (5) is odd. That is the problem. It may be understood as $\int dr_1 \int dr_2 \phi_p(1)^* \phi_q(2)^* r_{12} \phi_q (2)\phi_r(2)^* r_{12}^{-1} \phi_p(1) \phi_r(2) $. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27 at 12:48
  • $\begingroup$ I think it is just Eqn. (4), two "2" are independent. Like tensor contraction between $A = a_i e^i$, $B = b^i e_i$. If we compute $AB$, better rename as $i$ and $j$. Also, in Eqn. (4), if insert completeness relation, name two "2" as "2" and "3". $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27 at 13:16

0

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.