Quantum Mechanics Mathematical

Structure and Physical Structure Part II

(Revised 2022) Third Edition John
Boccio
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/quantum-mechanics-mathematical-structure-and-phy
sical-structure-part-ii-revised-2022-third-edition-john-boccio/
 Quantum Mechanics

Mathematical Structure
and
Physical Structure
Part II
John R. Boccio
Emeritus Professor of Physics
Swarthmore College

Copyright © 2020 by Professor John Boccio

Do not reproduce or distribute copies of this book without permission.

May 6, 2022
Contents

9 Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory 683

9.1 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683
9.1.1 What is the physical meaning of this result? . . . . . . . . 689
9.2 Atomic Radiation and Selection Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702
9.2.1 The Electric Dipole Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703
9.2.2 Induced Emission and Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705
9.3 A Real Physical Process - Ionization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708
9.3.1 Evaluation of the Matrix Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710
9.4 Adiabatic and Sudden Approximations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
9.5 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720
9.5.1 Square Well Perturbed by an Electric Field . . . . . . . . . 720
9.5.2 3-Dimensional Oscillator in an electric field . . . . . . . . . 720
9.5.3 Hydrogen in decaying potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
9.5.4 2 spins in a time-dependent potential . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
9.5.5 A Variational Calculation of the Deuteron Ground State
Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
9.5.6 Sudden Change - Don’t Sneeze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
9.5.7 Another Sudden Change - Cutting the spring . . . . . . . 722
9.5.8 Another perturbed oscillator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
9.5.9 Nuclear Decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
9.5.10 Time Evolution Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723
9.5.11 Two-Level System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723
9.5.12 Instantaneous Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723
9.5.13 Hydrogen beam between parallel plates . . . . . . . . . . . 723
9.5.14 Particle in a Delta Function and an Electric Field . . . . . 724
9.5.15 Nasty time-dependent potential [complex integration needed]725
9.5.16 Natural Lifetime of Hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
9.5.17 Oscillator in electric field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
9.5.18 Spin Dependent Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
9.5.19 The Driven Harmonic Oscillator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727
9.5.20 A Novel One-Dimensional Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
9.5.21 The Sudden Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
9.5.22 The Rabi Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729

i
ii CONTENTS

9.5.23 Rabi Frequencies in Cavity QED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729

10 Quantum Measurement 731

10.1 Basic Quantum Mechanics Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731
10.1.1 Where is the “collapse” postulate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734
10.2 The Measurement Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735
10.2.1 The Density Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736
10.2.2 A Crucial Example of the Need for the Density Operator 739
10.3 The so-called Gambler’s Ruin problem - a possible way to get to
the irreversible recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746
10.3.1 Mathematical Problem of the Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746
10.4 Another short digression - another way to get to the irreversible
recording - Decoherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750
10.5 Look closely at “which-path” experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
10.6 Resolving Paradoxes and Understanding Measurement . . . . . . 757
10.6.1 The apparent paradox of Schrödinger’s cat . . . . . . . . 757
10.6.2 Density Operator to the Rescue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758
10.7 Some Repetition and More Intricate Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
10.7.1 Remember the standard discussion from earlier: . . . . . . 763
10.7.2 The Local State Solution(due to Jauch) of the Problem of
Definite Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765
10.7.3 Now for even more details and new interpretations . . . . 768
10.7.4 An even more dramatic experiment - Experimental non-
locality and entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772
10.8 The Environment as Monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785
10.8.1 The Problem of Irreversibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787
10.8.2 How Environmental Decoherence Collapses Superpositions 789
10.8.3 Decoherence and the Measurement Problem . . . . . . . . 793
10.9 Last Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817

11 The EPR Argument and Bell Inequality 821

11.1 Hidden variables and Bell’s Inequalities-1st Try . . . . . . . . . . 821
11.1.1 The Electron Spin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
11.1.2 Correlations Between the Two Spins . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
11.1.3 A Simple Hidden Variable Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
11.2 Bell’s Theorem and Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
11.3 The EPR(Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) Argument-Quick Overview . 829
11.3.1 The Bell Inequality again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
11.4 EPR and Bell - The Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
11.4.1 Single-Photon Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
11.4.2 Basic Formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
11.5 Inseparable Photons (the EPR Paradox) including some history . 852
11.5.1 The Philosophical Stakes in the Debate . . . . . . . . . . . 852
11.5.2 From Como to Brussels (1927-30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
11.5.3 From Brussels to the EPR Paradox (1930-35) . . . . . . . 854
11.5.4 Elementary Introduction to the EPR Paradox . . . . . . . 855
CONTENTS iii

11.5.5 The EPR Paradox (1935-52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857

11.5.6 The BCHSH Inequality (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
11.5.7 BCHSH Inequality(Bell’s inequality in real world) . . . . . 861
11.5.8 The Beginnings of the Experiment at Orsay (1976) . . . . 864
11.6 The Principle of Non-Separability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
11.7 An Example and a Solution - Bell’s Theorem with Photons . . . 874
11.8 Non-Locality, EPR and Bell - a last time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
11.8.1 The Bell Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
11.9 Bayesian Probability in QM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
11.9.1 Using Bayesian Ideas in Analysis of Experiments . . . . . 884
11.9.2 Simple Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
11.9.3 Simple Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
11.9.4 More about the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger(GHZ) State 895
11.10Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
11.10.1 Bell Inequality with Stern-Gerlach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
11.10.2 Bell’s Theorem with Photons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
11.10.3 Bell’s Theorem with Neutrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
11.10.4 Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899

12 Identical Particles 901

12.1 Theoretical ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
12.2 Bosons with Spin = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
12.3 Spin = 1/2 Fermions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
12.4 The N-Electron Atom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
12.5 The Helium Atom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920
12.6 Multielectron Atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
12.6.1 Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
12.6.2 Shell Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
12.7 Angular Momentum Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
12.7.1 LS Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936
12.7.2 Hund’s Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
12.7.3 JJ-Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
12.8 Spherical Harmonics Addition Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948
12.8.1 Orbital Angular Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948
12.8.2 The Addition Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951
12.9 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953
12.9.1 Two Bosons in a Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953
12.9.2 Two Fermions in a Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
12.9.3 Two spin−1/2 particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
12.9.4 Hydrogen Atom Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
12.9.5 Hund’s rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
12.9.6 Russell-Saunders Coupling in Multielectron Atoms . . . . 956
12.9.7 Magnetic moments of proton and neutron . . . . . . . . . 957
12.9.8 Particles in a 3-D harmonic potential . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
12.9.9 2 interacting particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
iv CONTENTS

12.9.10 LS versus JJ coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959

12.9.11 In a harmonic potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
12.9.12 2 particles interacting via delta function . . . . . . . . . . 959
12.9.13 2 particles in a square well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
12.9.14 2 particles interacting via a harmonic potential . . . . . . 960
12.9.15 The Structure of helium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960

13 Some Examples of Quantum Systems 963

13.1 Coherent and Squeezed States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
13.2 Electron in a circular wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
13.3 Spin-Orbit Coupling in Complex Atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
13.4 Zeeman Effect in Complex Atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
13.4.1 Method #1: Plausibility Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
13.4.2 Method #2: Full Formal Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
13.5 Neutron Interferometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
13.5.1 Neutron Interferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
13.5.2 The Gravitational Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
13.6 The Penning Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982
13.6.1 Motion of an Electron in a Penning Trap . . . . . . . . . . 982
13.6.2 The Transverse Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984
13.6.3 Measurement of Electron Anomalous Magnetic Moment . 985
13.7 Schrodinger’s Cat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
13.7.1 Schrodinger’s Cat - a more detailed presentation . . . . . 987
13.7.2 Construction of a Schrodinger-Cat State . . . . . . . . . . 996
13.7.3 Quantum Superposition Versus Statistical Mixture . . . . 997
13.7.4 The Fragility of a Quantum Superposition . . . . . . . . . 1000
13.8 The Quantum Eraser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
13.8.1 Magnetic Resonance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
13.8.2 Ramsey Fringes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
13.8.3 Detection of the Neutron Spin State . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
13.8.4 The Actual Quantum Eraser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011

14 Solid State Physics 1015

14.1 Crystal Structure and Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
14.1.1 Symmetry of the Crystal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
14.2 Bloch Theorem, the Reciprocal Lattice and Brillouin Zones . . . 1029
14.2.1 Translation Operators in Configuration Space . . . . . . . 1029
14.2.2 Derivation of Bloch’s Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
14.3 Free-Electron and Weak-Binding Approximations;1-Dimension . 1045
14.3.1 The Free-Electron Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
14.4 Introduction to the Weak-Binding Approximation . . . . . . . . . 1054
14.5 The Kronig-Penney Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
14.5.1 Exact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
14.6 Free-Electron and Weak-Binding Approximations;2-Dimensions . 1072
14.6.1 The Free-Electron Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
CONTENTS v

14.7 Born-Oppenheimer description of two atoms in a combined oscil-

lator and lattice trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
14.7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
14.7.2 Lattice Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
14.7.3 Relative- and Center-of-Mass Quasi-Momenta . . . . . . . 1099
14.7.4 Born-Oppenheimer Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
14.7.5 Exact and Born-Oppenheimer Approximate Solutions . . 1107
14.7.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115
14.8 Spontaneous symmetry breaking in quantum mechanics . . . . . 1115
14.8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116
14.8.2 The Harmonic Crystal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116
14.8.3 The Thin Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
14.8.4 Subtleties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
14.8.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
14.9 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
14.9.1 Piecewise Constant Potential Energy
One Atom per Primitive Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
14.9.2 Piecewise Constant Potential Energy
Two Atoms per Primitive Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122
14.9.3 Free-Electron Energy Bands for a Crystal with a Primitive
Rectangular Bravais Lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123
14.9.4 Weak-Binding Energy Bands for a Crystal with a Hexag-
onal Bravais Lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123
14.9.5 A Weak-Binding Calculation #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124
14.9.6 Weak-Binding Calculations with Delta-Function Potential
Energies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
14.9.7 Is the spectrum of the harmonic crystal example really thin?1126
14.9.8 Are the limits really noncommutative in the harmonic
crystal example? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
14.9.9 The Bogoliubov transformation in the harmonic crystal
example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127

15 Relativistic Wave Equations

Electromagnetic Radiation in Matter 1129
15.1 Spin 0 particles: Klein-Gordon Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
15.1.1 How to find correct form of relativistic wave equation? . . 1130
15.1.2 Negative Energy States and Antiparticles . . . . . . . . . . 1134
15.2 Physics of the Klein-Gordon Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1137
15.3 Free Particles as Wave Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143
15.4 Bound State Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1147
15.4.1 Nonrelativistic Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1150
15.5 Relativistic Spin 1/2 Particles - The Dirac Equation . . . . . . . . 1151
15.5.1 Lorentz Transformation of Spin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1151
15.6 The Dirac Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1160
15.6.1 Nonrelativistic Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
vi CONTENTS

15.6.2 Currents and Continuity Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163

15.6.3 Free Particle Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
15.6.4 More About Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1169
15.6.5 Non-relativistic Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1171
15.6.6 The Dirac Hydrogen Atom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1174
15.7 Electromagnetic Radiation and Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193
15.7.1 Interacting with the Classical Radiation Field . . . . . . . 1193
15.7.2 Relation to Gauge Invariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1195
15.7.3 Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
15.7.4 Induced Absorption and Emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
15.7.5 Quantized Radiation Field and Spontaneous Emission . . 1199
15.8 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1204
15.8.1 Dirac Spinors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1204
15.8.2 Lorentz Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1205
15.8.3 Dirac Equation in 1 + 1 Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1205
15.8.4 Trace Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1205
15.8.5 Right- and Left-Handed Dirac Particles . . . . . . . . . . . 1206
15.8.6 Gyromagnetic Ratio for the Electron . . . . . . . . . . . . 1206
15.8.7 Dirac → Schrodinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207
15.8.8 Positive and Negative Energy Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . 1207
15.8.9 Helicity Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207
15.8.10 Non-Relativisitic Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207
15.8.11 Gyromagnetic Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207
15.8.12 Properties of γ5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1208
15.8.13 Lorentz and Parity Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1208
15.8.14 A Commutator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1208
15.8.15 Solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation . . . . . . . . . . . 1208
15.8.16 Matrix Representation of Dirac Matrices . . . . . . . . . . 1208
15.8.17 Weyl Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1209
15.8.18 Total Angular Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1209
15.8.19 Dirac Free Particle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1210
Chapter 9
Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory

9.1 Theory
Time-independent or stationary-state perturbation theory, as we developed ear-
lier, allows us to find approximations for the energy eigenvalues and eigenvectors
in complex physical systems that are not solvable in closed form and where we
could write Ĥ in two parts as

Ĥ = Ĥ0 + V̂ (9.1)

For these perturbation methods to work, V̂ must be weak and time-independent.

We now turn our attention to the case

Ĥ = Ĥ0 + V̂t (9.2)

where V̂t is weak and time-dependent.

Examples might be the decays of an atomic system by photon emission or the

ionization of an atom by shining light on it.

(0))
We assume that at some time t0 the system has evolved into the state ∣ψt ⟩,
(0
i.e., the state ∣ψt ⟩ satisfies the time evolution equation

̵ ∂ (0) (0)
ih ∣ψ ⟩ = Ĥ0 ∣ψt ⟩ t ≤ t0 (9.3)
∂t t
It is a solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation with no perturbing
interactions before t0 where

Ĥ = Ĥ0 t ≤ t0 (9.4)

At time t0 we turn on the interaction potential (or perturbation) so that

Ĥ = Ĥ0 + V̂t t ≥ t0 (9.5)

683
The new state of the system then satisfies

̵ ∂
ih ∣ψt ⟩ = Ĥ ∣ψt ⟩ = (Ĥ0 + V̂t ) ∣ψt ⟩ t ≥ t0 (9.6)
∂t
with the boundary condition(initial value)
(0)
∣ψt ⟩ = ∣ψt ⟩ at t=t0 (9.7)

As we said, we assume that the full time-dependent Schrodinger equation cannot

be solved in closed form and so we look for approximate solutions.

We let V̂t be a small perturbation, i.e., we assume there is a natural small

parameter in V̂t (as we saw in time-independent perturbation theory) and we
make an expansion of the solution in powers of V̂t or this small parameter.

Since the effect of Ĥ0 will be much greater than the effect of V̂t , most of the time
dependence comes from Ĥ0 . If we could neglect V̂t , then since Ĥ0 is independent
of time, we would have the simple time dependence
(0)
∣ψt ⟩ = e− h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣ψt ⟩
i
(9.8)

Let us assume that this is still approximately true and remove this known time
dependence from the solution. This should remove the major portion of the
total time dependence from the problem. We do this by assuming a solution of
the form
∣ψt ⟩ = e− h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣ψ(t)⟩
i
(9.9)
and then determining and solving the equation for the new state vector ∣ψ(t)⟩.

Substituting this assumption in our original equation, the equation for ∣ψ(t)⟩ is
then given by

̵ ∂ − h̵i Ĥ0 t
∣ψ(t)⟩) = (Ĥ0 + V̂t ) (e− h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣ψ(t)⟩)
i
ih (e
∂t
Ĥ0 e− h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣ψ(t)⟩ + ihe
i
̵ − h̵i Ĥ0 t ∂ ∣ψ(t)⟩
∂t
−h
∣ψ(t)⟩ + V̂t e− h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣ψ(t)⟩
i i
= Ĥ0 e ̵ Ĥ0 t

̵ ∂ ∣ψ(t)⟩ = V̂ (t) ∣ψ(t)⟩

ih (9.10)
∂t
where
V̂ (t) = e h̵ Ĥ0 t V̂t e− h̵ Ĥ0 t
i i
(9.11)
The substitution has removed Ĥ0 from the equation and changed the time de-
pendence of the perturbing potential. We are in the so-called interaction picture
or representation where both the state vectors and the operators depend on time
as we discussed earlier.

684
We develop a formal solution by integrating this equation of motion for the
state vector to get
t t
̵∫ ∂
ih ∣ψ(t′ )⟩dt′ = ∫ V̂ (t′ ) ∣ψ(t′ )⟩dt′
∂t′
t0 t0
̵
= ih(∣ψ(t)⟩ − ∣ψ(t0 )⟩) (9.12)

so that the formal solution is given by

t
1
∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ + ̵ ∫ V̂ (t′ ) ∣ψ(t′ )⟩dt′ (9.13)
ih
t0

This is an integral equation for ∣ψ(t)⟩. We solve it as a power series in V̂t by the
method of iteration.

The 0th −order approximation is found by neglecting the perturbing potential.

We get
∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ (9.14)
The 1st −order approximation is obtained by inserting the 0th −order approxima-
tion into the full equation. We get
t
1
∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ + ̵ ∫ V̂ (t′ ) ∣ψ(t0 )⟩dt′
ih
t0

⎛ 1
t
⎞
= ⎜1 + ̵ ∫ V̂ (t′ )dt′ ⎟ ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ (9.15)
⎝ ih ⎠
t0

The 2nd −order approximation is obtained by inserting the 1st −order approxi-
mation into the full equation. We get
t
1
∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ + ̵ ∫ V̂ (t′ ) ∣ψ(t0 )⟩dt′
ih
t0
t t′
1
+ ̵ 2 ∫ dt′ ∫ dt′′ V̂ (t′ )V̂ (t′′ ) ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ (9.16)
(ih)
t0 t0

Notice that in all subsequent iterations the operators V̂ (t′ ),V̂ (t′′ ),. . ., etc, always
occur in order of increasing time from right to left.

We can write the general result as

∣ψ(t)⟩ = Û (t, t0 ) ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ (9.17)

685
where

t t1 tn−1
∞
1
Û (t, t0 ) = Iˆ + ∑ ̵ n ∫
dt1 ∫ dt2 ........ ∫ dtn V̂ (t1 )V̂ (t2 ).......V̂ (tn ) (9.18)
n=1 (ih) t0 t0 t0

The complete, formal solution to the problem is then given by

∣ψt ⟩ = e− h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣ψ(t)⟩ = e− h̵ Ĥ0 t Û (t, t0 ) ∣ψ(t0 )⟩

i i
(9.19)

so that
e− h̵ Ĥ0 t Û (t, t0 ) = the total time development operator
i
(9.20)

Before developing the detailed techniques of time-dependent perturbation the-

ory, let us spend some time with the operator Û (t, t0 ) and discuss some of its
properties.

We first introduce the idea of a time-ordered product of operators as follows.

The symbol

(Â(t)B̂(t1 )Ĉ(t2 ).......X̂(tn ))+ ≡ T (Â(t)B̂(t1 )Ĉ(t2 ).......X̂(tn )) (9.21)

means the product of the operators where the operators are written from right
to left in order of increasing times, i.e.,

Â(t)B̂(t′ ) t ≥ t′
(Â(t)B̂(t′ ))+ = { (9.22)
B̂(t′ )Â(t) t′ ≥ t

Now, we have using the time-ordered product definition

⎛⎡⎢ t ⎤2 ⎞
⎥ ⎛ t t
⎞
⎢ ′ ′⎥
⎜⎢∫ V̂ (t )dt ⎥ ⎟ = ⎜∫ V̂ (t )dt ∫ V̂ (t′′ )dt′′ ⎟
′ ′

⎝⎢⎣t0 ⎥ ⎠
⎦ + ⎝t0 t0 ⎠
+
t t
= ∫ dt′ ∫ dt′′ (V̂ (t′ )V̂ (t′′ ))+
t0 t0
t t′ t t′′
= ∫ dt ∫ dt V̂ (t )V̂ (t ) + ∫ dt ∫ dt′ V̂ (t′′ )V̂ (t′ )
′ ′′ ′ ′′ ′′

t0 t0 t0 t0
t t′
= 2 ∫ dt′ ∫ dt′′ V̂ (t′ )V̂ (t′′ ) (9.23)
t0 t0

686
and in general

⎛⎡⎢ t ⎤n ⎞
⎥ ⎛ t t t
⎞
⎜⎢⎢∫ V̂ (t )dt ⎥⎥ ⎟ = ⎜∫ V̂ (t1 )dt1 ∫ V̂ (t2 )dt2 ..... ∫ V̂ (tn )dtn ⎟
′ ′

⎝⎢⎣t0 ⎥ ⎠
⎦ + ⎝t0 t0 t0 ⎠
+
t t t
= ∫ dt1 ∫ dt2 ...... ∫ dtn (V̂ (t1 )V̂ (t2 )......V̂ (tn ))+
t0 t0 t0
t t t
= n! ∫ dt1 ∫ dt2 ...... ∫ dtn V̂ (t1 )V̂ (t2 )......V̂ (tn ) (9.24)
t0 t0 t0

because there are n! possible orderings of the n terms involved. This last form
is identical to the expression for Û (t, t0 ) and thus we have

⎡ t ⎤n ⎞
1 1 ⎛⎢⎢
∞
′
⎥
′⎥
Û (t, t0 ) = ∑ ̵ n ⎜⎢∫ V̂ (t )dt ⎥ ⎟
n=0 (ih) n! ⎝⎢t ⎥ ⎠
⎣0 ⎦ +
⎛ ⎡ ⎤
⎥⎞
t
⎢ i
= ⎜exp ⎢⎢− ̵ ∫ V̂ (t′ )dt′ ⎥⎥⎟ (9.25)
⎝ ⎢ ht ⎥⎠
⎣ 0 ⎦ +

The last expression is just a convenient shorthand for the infinite sum. In order
to verify that this is in fact a solution of

̵ ∂
ih ∣ψ(t)⟩ = V̂ (t) ∣ψ(t)⟩ (9.26)
∂t
we must prove that

̵ ∂
ih Û (t, t0 ) ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ = V̂ (t)Û (t, t0 ) ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ (9.27)
∂t
̵ ∂ Û (t, t0 ) = V̂ (t)Û (t, t0 )
ih (9.28)
∂t
Substituting, we have

⎛ ⎡ t ⎤⎞
∂ ⎢ ⎥
̵ ̵ ∂ ⎜exp ⎢− i ∫ V̂ (t′ )dt′ ⎥⎟
Û (t, t0 ) = ih
ih ⎢ ̵ ⎥
∂t ∂t ⎝ ⎢ ht ⎥⎠
⎣ 0 ⎦ +
⎛ ⎡ t ⎤⎞
⎢ i ⎥
= ⎜V̂ (t) exp ⎢⎢− ̵ ∫ V̂ (t′ )dt′ ⎥⎥⎟ (9.29)
⎝ ⎢ ht ⎥⎠
⎣ 0 ⎦ +

In the differentiation we do not have to worry about the non-commutation of the

operators inside the time-ordered product since the order is already specified.
Since t is certainly the latest time in the time-ordered product and therefore

687
all the other operators will be on the right of V̂ (t) we can pull it outside the
time-ordered product and write

⎛ ⎡ t ⎤⎞
∂ ⎢ i ⎥
̵ ⎢ ′ ′⎥
ih Û (t, t0 ) = V̂ (t) ⎜exp ⎢− ̵ ∫ V̂ (t )dt ⎥⎟ = V̂ (t)Û (t, t0 )
∂t ⎝ ⎢ h ⎥⎠
⎣ t0 ⎦ +

as required.

The most important question (really the only question) that is usually asked in
quantum mechanics is the following:

Suppose that the system is initially in an eigenstate

∣n⟩ of Ĥ0 , i.e., Ĥ0 ∣n⟩ = n ∣n⟩. What is the probability
that the system will be observed, after the perturbation
has had time to act, in a different (and thus orthogonal)
eigenstate of Ĥ0 , say ∣m⟩?

Alternatively, the question is sometimes posed this way:

What is the probability that the interaction causes the

system to make a transition from the state ∣n⟩ to the
state ∣m⟩?

The probability amplitude for observing the system in the state ∣m⟩ at time t
is given by

⟨m ∣ ψt ⟩ = ⟨m∣ e− h̵ Ĥ0 t Û (t, t0 ) ∣ψ(t0 )⟩

i

= ⟨m∣ e− h̵ Ĥ0 t Û (t, t0 ) ∣n⟩

i
(9.30)

where

∣ψ(t0 )⟩ = ∣n⟩ (9.31)

is the initial state.

Setting t0 = 0 for simplicity and using the 1st −order approximation for Û (t, 0)
and also using

+ +
⟨m∣ e− h̵ Ĥ0 t = (e h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣m⟩) = (e h̵ εm t ∣m⟩) = ⟨m∣ e− h̵ εm t
i i i i
(9.32)

688
we get
t
1 i
⟨m ∣ ψt ⟩ = ̵ e− h̵ εm t ∫ dt′ ⟨m∣ V̂ (t′ ) ∣n⟩
ih
0
t
1 i
= ̵ e− h̵ εm t ∫ dt′ ⟨m∣ e h̵ Ĥ0 t V̂t′ e− h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣n⟩
i i

ih
0
t
1 i
= ̵ e− h̵ εm t ∫ dt′ e h̵ (εm −εn )t ⟨m∣ V̂t′ ∣n⟩
i
(9.33)
ih
0

The probability of the transition is then

RRR t RRRR
2
1 RRR ̵ (εm −εn )t
′ h R
⟨m∣ V̂t′ ∣n⟩RRR
2 i
Pn→m (t) = ∣⟨m ∣ ψt ⟩∣ = ̵ 2 RRR∫ dt e (9.34)
h RRR 0 RRR
R

The simplest example is when V̂t is not a function of t, or V̂t = V̂ . We then have
2 RRR t RRR2
∣⟨m∣ V̂t′ ∣n⟩∣
2 RRR ̵ (εm −εn )t R
′ h
i RR
Pn→m (t) = ∣⟨m ∣ ψt ⟩∣ = ̵2 RRR∫ dt e RRR (9.35)
h RRR 0 RRR

If we define ∆ = m − n , then we have

2 2
1 − e− h̵ ∆t
i ∆t
2 2 sin 2h
̵
Pn→m (t) = ∣⟨m∣ V̂t′ ∣n⟩∣ ∣ ∣ = ∣⟨m∣ V̂t′ ∣n⟩∣ ( ) (9.36)
∆ ∆/2

for the transition probability.

9.1.1 What is the physical meaning of this result?

We must be very careful when we use the words

the perturbation causes a transition

between eigenstates of Ĥ0

What this means physically is that the system has absorbed from the perturbing
field (or emitted to it) the energy difference ∆ = m −n and therefore the system
has changed its energy.

Does the statement also mean that the state vector has changed from an initial
value ∣ψ(0)⟩ = ∣n⟩ to a final value ∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∣m⟩?

We can get a better feeling for the correct answer to this question by deriving
the result in a different manner.

689
We have
̵ ∂
ih ∣ψt ⟩ = Ĥ ∣ψt ⟩ = (Ĥ0 + V̂t ) ∣ψt ⟩ (9.37)
∂t
and
Ĥ0 ∣n⟩ = εn ∣n⟩ (9.38)
As in our development of time-independent perturbation theory, we let
V̂t = g Ût (9.39)
where g is a small parameter.

The set of eigenvectors {∣n⟩} is a complete set and therefore we can use it as a
basis for the space and, in particular, we can write

∣ψt ⟩ = ∑ an (t)e− h̵ εn t ∣n⟩

i
(9.40)
n

The reason for pulling out the phase factors will be clear shortly.

It is clear that if g = 0, then this is the correct general solution with

an (t) = an (0) = constant (9.41)
The phase factors we pulled out represent the time dependence due to Ĥ0 and
this is, by assumption, the major time dependence in the system.

If g is small we expect the time dependence of an (t), which is due to the per-
turbation to be weak or that
dan (t)
is small (9.42)
dt
It is in this sense that we can propose to use perturbation theory on the system.

Using the eigenbasis expansion we have

̵ dan (t) + εn an (t))e− h̵i εn t ∣n⟩

∑ (ih
n dt
= ∑ (εn an (t) + g Ût an (t))e− h̵ εn t ∣n⟩
i
(9.43)
n

Applying the linear functional ⟨m∣ from the left and using the orthonormality
relation
⟨m ∣ n⟩ = δmn (9.44)
we get

̵ dam (t)
ih = g ∑ ⟨m∣ Ût ∣n⟩ eiωmn t an (t)
dt n
= ∑ Vmn (t)eiωmn t an (t) (9.45)
n

690
where
εm − εn
ωmn = ̵ (9.46)
h
This is an exact equation. It implies that the time dependence of an (t) is due
entirely to V̂t (because we explicitly extracted out the dependence due to Ĥ0 ).
This is the interaction picture that we had earlier.

Exactly Solvable 2-State Example

Consider a 2-state system with

E1 0 0 δeiωt V V12
H0 = ( ) , V (t) = ( −iωt ) = ( 11 ) (9.47)
0 E2 δe 0 V21 V22

In the interaction picture, as derived above, we have

̵ dcm (t)
∣ψt ⟩ = ∑ cn (t)e− h̵ εn t ∣n⟩
i
ih = ∑ Vmn (t)eiωmn t cn (t) , (9.48)
dt n n

or

̵ dc1 (t) E −E2

i[ω+ 1 h ]t
ih = δe ̵
c2 (t) (9.49)
dt
̵ dc2 (t) = δei[−ω− 1h̵ 2 ]t c1 (t)
E −E
ih (9.50)
dt
∣ψt ⟩ = c1 (t)e− h̵ E1 t ∣1⟩ + c2 (t)e− h̵ E2 t ∣2⟩
i i
(9.51)

We can write these equations as

dC(t) iδ 0 ei[ω−ω21 ]t
= − ̵ ( −i[ω−ω21 ]t ) C(t) (9.52)
dt h e 0

where
c1 (t) E2 − E1
C(t) = ( ) , ω21 = ̵ (9.53)
c2 (t) h
We can find an exact solution. With initial conditions c1 (0) = 1 and c2 (0) = 0
we get
2 δ2 2
∣c1 (t)∣ = ̵ 2 (ω−ω21 )2 sin Ωt = 1 − ∣c2 (t)∣
2
(9.54)
h
δ +
2
4

where
2
δ 2 (ω − ω21 )
Ω2 = ̵ 2 + (9.55)
h 4
A graph of these functions is shown in Figure 9.1 below.

691
 Figure 9.1: Exact Solution

A straightforward calculation gives

2
2 (ω − ω21 )
∣c1 (t)∣min = 2 4δ 2
(9.56)
(ω − ω21 ) + h̵2

At resonance, ω = ω21 , we have

δ 2
Ω= ̵ , ∣c1 (t)∣min = 0 (9.57)
h
as shown in Figure 9.2 below.

Figure 9.2: At Resonance

The amplitude as a function of ω is shown in Figure 9.3 below.

Figure 9.3: Amplitude versus ω

692
where ∆ = full width at half maximum = 4δ/h. ̵ The amplitude is peaked at
resonance and the width is proportional to δ (the strength of the perturbation).

This periodically forced 2−state system is a basic problem - it demonstrates the

fundamental features of absorption and emission.

We now return to the full, general equations and look for a perturbation solution.
Now we assume (power series)

an (t) = a(0) (1) 2 (2)

n + gan + g an + ...... (9.58)

Substituting and arranging the terms in a power series in g we have

⎛ da(0) (1)
n ⎞ 0 ⎛ ̵ dam ⎞ 1
− ∑ ⟨m∣ Ût ∣n⟩ e h̵ ωmn t a(0)
i
g + ih n g + .....+
⎝ dt ⎠ ⎝ dt n ⎠
⎛ ̵ da(r+1) ⎞
− ∑ ⟨m∣ Ût ∣n⟩ e h̵ ωmn t an(r) g r + ....... = 0
m i
ih
⎝ dt n ⎠

or looking at each order separately we have

(0)
dan
0th − order =0
dt
(1)
̵ dam = ∑ ⟨m∣ Ût ∣n⟩ e h̵i ωmn t a(0)
1st − order ih n
dt n
.......
.......
(r+1)
̵ dam
= ∑ ⟨m∣ Ût ∣n⟩ e h̵ ωmn t an(r)
i
(r + 1)st − order ih
dt n
.......
(0)
Note that the coefficients an follow from the initial condition

∣ψ(0)⟩ = ∑ a(0)
n ∣n⟩ (9.59)
n

The solution proceeds as follows:

initial condition → a(0)

n

a(0) (1)
n → an using the 1 − order equation
st

........
a(r) (r+1)
n → an using the (r + 1)st − order equation

693
Now consider the following example. We assume that

Ĥ = Ĥ0 t≤0 (9.60)

where
Ĥ0 ∣n⟩ = εn ∣n⟩ (9.61)
and during the time interval 0 ≤ t ≤ T a perturbation V̂t is applied to the system
and the an (t) change with time.

Finally, for t ≥ T the perturbation is turned off and an (t) = an (T ).

The probability that, as a result of the perturbation, the energy of the system
becomes r , is given by
2
∣⟨r ∣ ψt ⟩∣ = ∣∑ ai (t)e− h̵ εi t ⟨r ∣ i⟩∣ = ∣ar (t)∣
2 i 2
(9.62)
i

and as t → ∞ we get
2 2
∣⟨r ∣ ψt ⟩∣ = ∣ar (T )∣ (9.63)
Now to 1 −order we have
st

(1)
̵ dar
= ∑ ⟨r∣ Ût ∣n⟩ e h̵ ωrn t a(0)
i
ih n (9.64)
dt n

If ∣ψ(0)⟩ = ∣i⟩, then

⎧
⎪
⎪1 n = i
a(0) =⎨ (9.65)
n
⎪
⎪0 n≠i
⎩
This gives
(1)
̵ dar i
ih = ⟨r∣ Ût ∣i⟩ e h̵ ωri t (9.66)
dt
Integrating we have
T
1
a(1) = ̵ ∫ ⟨r∣ Ût ∣i⟩ e h̵ (εr −εi )t dt
i
r (T ) (9.67)
ih
0

and
ar (T ) = a(0) (1)
r (T ) + gar (T ) (9.68)
which is identical to our earlier result as t → ∞.

Now let return to our question. Has the state changed also?

In the example we found that the perturbation produces a final state ∣ψt ⟩ for
t ≥ T which to 1st −order is

∣ψt ⟩ = ∑ an (t)e− h̵ εn t ∣n⟩

i
(9.69)
n

694
This is a coherent (definite relative phases) superposition of eigenvectors of Ĥ0 .
This is NOT a stationary state. Interference effects between the terms in the
sum are detectable. They do not, however, affect
2
∣ar (T )∣ = probability that the energy changes to εr (9.70)

Thus, the perturbation does not cause a jump from one stationary state ∣i⟩ of
Ĥ0 to another ∣r⟩, but instead it produces a non-stationary state.

The conventional language of quantum mechanics produces this ambiguity be-

tween the two statements

the energy is r and the state is ∣r⟩

For the state

∣ψt ⟩ = ∑ an (t)e− h̵ εn t ∣n⟩
i

n
it is correct to say

the probability of the energy being r is ∣ar (T )∣2

or

P rob(E = r ∣ ∣ψ⟩) = ∣ar (T )∣2

The state, however, is ∣ψt ⟩ and NOT ∣r⟩.

An example
Suppose we perturb an oscillator with a decaying electric field of the form

V̂t = −qE0 x̂e− τ

t
t≥0 (9.71)

To 1st −order, starting with the initial state ∣n⟩ with energy

̵ 1
εn = hω(n + ) (9.72)
2
we have
t
1
∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∣n⟩ + ̵ ∫ dt′ V̂ (t) ∣n⟩ (9.73)
ih
0
where
V̂ (t) = e h̵ Ĥ0 t V̂t e− h̵ Ĥ0 t
i i
(9.74)
We let n = 0 (the ground state) for this example. We then have
t
1
∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∣0⟩ + ̵ ∫ dt′ e h̵ Ĥ0 t (−qE0 x̂)e− τ e− h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣0⟩
i t i
(9.75)
ih
0

695
Using

e− h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣0⟩ = e−i 2 t ∣0⟩

i ω
(9.76)
√
̵
h
x̂ ∣0⟩ = ∣1⟩ (9.77)
2mω
i 3ω
e h̵ Ĥ0 t ∣1⟩ = ei 2 t ∣0⟩ (9.78)

we get (letting t → ∞)
√ ∞
1 ̵
h ′ iωt′ − τt
∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∣0⟩ + ̵ (−qE0 ) ∫ dt e ∣1⟩ (9.79)
ih 2mω
0

and finally,
RRR ∞ RRR2
2 q 2 E02 RRR ′ iωt′ − τt RRR
P0→1 = ∣⟨1 ∣ ψ(t)⟩∣ = ̵ RRR∫ dt e RRR
2mhω RRR 0 RRR
q 2 E02 τ2
= ̵ τ 2 ω2 + 1 (9.80)
2mhω
We now return to the earlier general result (9.36) we derived for the probability,
namely,
∆t 2
2 sin 2h
̵
P0→n (t) = ∣⟨n∣ V̂t′ ∣0⟩∣ ( ) (9.81)
∆/2
In Figure 9.4 below we plot this function.

696
 Figure 9.4: Probability(0,n) versus Delta

The height of the central peak is proportional to t2 and the location of the first
zero is at
2π h̵
∆= (9.82)
t
so that the width of the peak decreases as 1/t.

The formula implies that for very short times

P0→n ∝ t2 for all εn (9.83)
As t → ∞, however, the probability is largest for those states whose energy lies
under the sharp bump near ∆ = 0 or those states with whose energy lies under
the peak around 0 . Now the energy n ≈ 0 lies under the sharp bump when
̵
2π h
∣∆∣ = ∣εn − ε0 ∣ < (9.84)
t
The area under the bump is proportional to t and the rest of the area oscillates
in time around zero. This latter feature means that if n ≠ 0 , the transition
probability oscillates in time with a repetition time of
̵
2π h
(9.85)
∣εn − ε0 ∣
The case, where we are looking for a transition to a single state, is, thus, only
valid in perturbation theory for very small time t. Otherwise the condition that
the
P0→0 (t) ≈ 1 (9.86)

697
will not be true and perturbation theory breaks down. We also note that the
probability cannot grow larger than one or that, after a while, the higher-order
effects of the perturbation which we have neglected so far must become impor-
tant and prevent the probability from exceeding one.

The condition that tells us whether a transition probability to a state with

an energy appreciably different than the original energy is the same condition
in time-independent perturbation theory that tells whether the state vector
changes appreciably from the unperturbed state, namely
⟨n∣ V̂ ∣0⟩
∣ ∣ << 1 (9.87)
εn − ε0
Physically, a more interesting case occurs when the state ∣n⟩ is one of a contin-
uum of energy states, or it lies in a group of very closely spaced levels.

In this case we ask a different experimental question, namely,

What is the probability that the system makes

a transition to a small group of states near
∣n⟩ (or has energy near n )?

Since the area under the bump near ∆ = 0 or n ≈ 0 is proportional to t, we

expect that the transition probability to a small group of states near 0 will
grow linearly with t and thus
P0→n (t)
= transition rate = Γ = constant as t → ∞ (9.88)
t
Quantities that we measure are related to the transition rate and this result
says that these measurements will make sense.

Let us now carry out this derivation in detail.

To calculate this transition rate we must sum P0→n over the group of final states.
We assume that ∣ ⟨b∣ V̂t′ ∣0⟩ ∣2 is relatively constant over the small group of states
near ∣n⟩ (has a weak energy dependence).

We then have
⎡ 0 )t ⎤
2
⎢ sin [ (εn −ε
̵ ] ⎥⎥
2 ⎢ h
∑ P0→n (t) = ∣⟨n∣ V̂t′ ∣0⟩∣ ∫ dεn ρ(εn ) ⎢ ⎥ (9.89)
⎢ [ (εn −ε0 ) ] ⎥
n ⎢ ⎥
ingroup group ⎣ 2 ⎦
where
ρ(εn ) = number of states per unit energy
ρ(εn )dεn = number of states in the interval dεn

698
Now in the limit t → ∞
⎡ 0 )t ⎤
2
⎢ sin [ (εn −ε
̵ ] ⎥⎥
⎢ h 2πt
⎢ ⎥ → ̵ δ(ε0 − εn ) (9.90)
⎢ [ (εn −ε0 ) ] ⎥ h
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 2 ⎦
i.e., in general, for a sequence of functions

sin2 αt
δt (α) = (9.91)
πα2 t
we have that
⎧
⎪
⎪t α=0
δt (α) = ⎨ π (9.92)
⎪
⎪≤ 1
α≠0
⎩ πα2 t

and
∞
lim ∫ dαδt (α)F (α) = F (0) (9.93)
t→∞
−∞

Therefore,
lim δt (α) = δ(α) (9.94)
t→∞

Using this result, we have

∑ P0→n (t) =Γt (9.95)
n

and thus
2π 2
Γ = transition rate = ̵ ∣⟨n∣ V̂ ∣0⟩∣ ρ(εn )εn =ε0 (9.96)
h
which is called Fermi’s Golden Rule.

We now consider a perturbation that depends explicitly on time. In particular,

suppose we have a harmonic perturbation of the form

V̂ ηt −iωt
V̂t = V̂ eηt cos ωt = e (e + eiωt ) (9.97)
2
and ∣ψ(t0 )⟩ = ∣0⟩, where we let t0 → −∞. The eηt factor is necessary to make
the mathematical operations valid in the limit. It is equivalent for small η to
turning the perturbation on slowly. In the end we will let η → 0.

We have
0
1 i
⟨n ∣ ψ(t)⟩ = ⟨n ∣ 0⟩ + ̵ e− h̵ εn t ∫ dt′ ⟨n∣V̂ (t′ ) ∣0⟩
ih
−∞
̵ ̵
ei(εn −ε0 −hω) h̵ ei(εn −ε0 +hω) h̵
t t
eηt
= [ ̵ + ihη ̵ + ̵ + ihη ̵ ] ⟨n∣ V̂ ∣0⟩ (9.98)
2 ε0 − εn + hω ε0 − εn − hω

699
Thus, the probability of the energy being n at the time t is
2
∣⟨n ∣ ψ(t)⟩∣
⎧
⎪ 1
+ 1 ⎫
⎪
e2ηt 2⎪ ̵ 2 +(hη)
(ε0 −εn +hω) ̵ 2 ̵ 2 +(hη)
(ε0 −εn −hω) ̵ 2 ⎪
= ∣⟨n∣ V̂ ∣0⟩∣ ⎨ ⎬ (9.99)
⎪ +2Re (ε0 −εn +hω+i ⎪
−2iωt
e
4 ⎪
⎩ ̵ ̵
hη)(ε ̵ ̵
0 −εn −hω+ihη)
⎪
⎭

The first term comes from the e−iωt part of V̂t (positive frequency) and the
second term comes from the eiωt part of V̂t (negative frequency). The last term
represents interference effects.

Since
P0→n (t) = Γ0→n t (9.100)
we have
dP0→n (t)
Γ0→n = (9.101)
dt
and thus

Γ0→n (9.102)
⎧ ⎫
2⎪
⎪ [ ̵ 2 ̵ 2 + (ε0 −εn −hω) ̵ 2 ] (1 − cos 2ωt) ⎪
1 1
e2ηt ̵ 2 +(hη) ⎪
= ∣⟨n∣ V̂ ∣0⟩∣ ⎨ (ε0 −εn +hω) +(hη) ⎬
4 ⎪
⎪ +2 sin 2ωt [ e−2iωt
] ⎪
⎪
⎩ (ε 0 −ε n + ̵
hω+i ̵
hη)(ε 0 −ε n − ̵
hω+i ̵
hη) ⎭

The sin ωt and cos ωt terms arise from the interference term. In the limit η → 0
and assuming that ∣n⟩ is in the continuum part of spectrum, we have
̵
1. the first two terms are not equal to zero only if εn − ε0 = ±hω

2. the sin ωt and cos ωt terms average to zero if we assume that Γ0→n is
dP0→n (t)/dt averaged over a few cycles of V̂t

which gives the result

2
2π ∣⟨n∣ V̂ ∣0⟩∣ ̵ + δ(εn − ε0 + hω)]
̵
Γ0→n = ̵ [δ(εn − ε0 − hω) (9.103)
h 4
The positive and negative frequency parts act independently and the interference
averages to zero.

Thus, the e−iωt part produced a ∆E > 0 process (absorption), while the eiωt
part produced a ∆E < 0 process (emission).

To enhance our understanding of time-dependent perturbation theory, we look

at a variation of this harmonic perturbation. Suppose we have a harmonic
perturbation of the form
V̂t = V̂ e−iωt + V̂ + eiωt (9.104)

700
which is only applied for a finite time interval 0 ≤ t ≤ T . If we start with energy
i in the state ∣i⟩, then at any time t ≥ T
(1)
af (t) = 1st − order amplitude for the state ∣ψ(t)⟩
to have energy εf (be in state ∣f ⟩ ?) f ≠ i

is given by
T T
(1) 1 1
af (T ) = ̵ ⟨f ∣ V̂ ∣i⟩ ∫ ei(ωf i −ω)t dt + ̵ ⟨f ∣ V̂ + ∣i⟩ ∫ ei(ωf i +ω)t dt (9.105)
ih ih
0 0

and
(1) 2
∣af (T )∣ = probability that the final energy will be f (9.106)
As an example we consider spin resonance (we solved this problem exactly ear-
lier).

We consider a spin = 1/2 particle in a static magnetic field B0 (in the z−direction).
This says that the unperturbed Hamiltonian is
1̵
Ĥ0 = − hγB0 σ̂z (9.107)
2
This operator has the eigenvectors and eigenvalues

1 0 1̵
∣+⟩ = ( ) , ∣−⟩ = ( ) , ± = ∓ hγB0 (9.108)
0 1 2
We now perturb the system with another magnetic field B1 , which is rotating
in the x − y plane with angular velocity ω. This implies that
1̵
V̂t = − hγB1 (cos ωtî + sin ωtĵ) ⋅ σ̂
2
1̵ 1̵ 0 e−iωt
= − hγB1 [σ̂x cos ωt + σ̂y sin ωt] = − hγB1 ( iωt )
2 2 e 0
1̵ −iωt
= − hγB1 (V̂ e + V̂ + eiωt ) (9.109)
2
where
0 1 0 0
V̂ = ( ) , V̂ + = ( ) (9.110)
0 0 1 0
We choose the initial state to be

∣i⟩ = ∣n⟩ (spin up in the z-direction) (9.111)

The first order perturbation theory approximation for this result is

2
(1) 2 ω1 1
∣af (T )∣ = ( ) sin2 (ω0 + ω)T (9.112)
ω0 + ω 2

701
where
ω0 = γB0 , ω1 = γB1 (9.113)
and we have used
1̵
⟨−∣ V̂ ∣+⟩ = 0, ⟨−∣ V̂ + ∣+⟩ = − hγB 1 (9.114)
2
εf − εi
ωf i = ̵ = ω0 (9.115)
h
When is the first order perturbation theory result valid?

If we compare the exact result with perturbation theory by expanding the exact
result in a power series, we find that the two results agree exactly if
ω1
∣ ∣ << 1 (9.116)
ω0 + ω
which corresponds B1 ≪ B0 (as long as ω0 + ω ≠ 0). When ω0 + ω = 0 we have a
phenomenon called resonance. The exact solution gives
2 1
∣af (T )∣ = sin2 αT (9.117)
2
2
where α2 = (ω0 + ω) + ω12 and perturbation theory gives

(1) 2 ω1 T 2
∣af (T )∣ = ( ) (9.118)
2
Thus, the results agree only if ∣ω1 T ∣ ≪ 1 or if the perturbation only acts for a
short time.

9.2 Atomic Radiation and Selection Rules

We now apply time-independent perturbation theory to the absorption and
emission electromagnetic radiation by matter.

The Hamiltonian for an electron in an atom interacting with and electromagnetic

field is
(⃗ ⃗ 2
pop − qc A)
Ĥ = + qφ + U (9.119)
2me
where q = −e, U = the potential energy function that binds the electrons in the
atom, and A⃗ and ϕ are the vector and scalar potentials associated with the
electromagnetic field.

These potentials imply the electric and magnetic fields

⃗
⃗ = −∇φ − 1 ∂ A ,B
E ⃗ = ∇ × A⃗ (9.120)
c ∂t

702
Note that if A⃗ = 0, the B
⃗ = 0 and

r⃗
⃗ r, t)⋅d⃗
φ = − ∫ E(⃗ r (9.121)
0

We rewrite Ĥ as
Ĥ = Ĥ0 + V̂ (9.122)
where
p⃗2op
Ĥ0 = + U = Hamiltonian for the atom with no electromagnetic field
2me
(9.123)
and
q q2
V̂ = pop ⋅ A⃗ + A⃗ ⋅ p⃗op ) +
(⃗ (A⃗ ⋅ A)
⃗ + qφ (9.124)
2me c 2me c2
is the perturbation due to the presence of the electromagnetic field, i.e., the
term V̂ tells us how the atom interacts with the electromagnetic field.

9.2.1 The Electric Dipole Approximation

The typical wavelength of visible electromagnetic radiation is ≈ 5000 and the
typical dimension of an atom is ≈ a few . This implies that the electromagnetic
fields are approximately constant over the volume of the atom.

⃗ ≈ ∣B∣,
In Gaussian units ∣E∣ ⃗ but the force due to B ⃗ ≈ (v/c)× the force due to E.
⃗
Thus, magnetic effects are negligible in most atoms compared to electric effects.
We therefore assume
⃗ ≈ constant over the volume of the atom
1. E
⃗ can be neglected
2. B
This is the so-called electric dipole approximation.

In this approximation, we have A⃗ = 0 and as we said above (11.121), B

⃗ = 0 and

r⃗
⃗ r, t)⋅d⃗
φ = − ∫ E(⃗ r (9.125)
0

This last integral is independent of path since

⃗
⃗ = − 1 ∂B = 0
∇×E (9.126)
c ∂t
⃗ ≈ constant over the volume of the atom, we get
Since we are assuming that E

φ = −⃗ ⃗
r ⋅ E(t) (9.127)

703
This adds a perturbation of the form

V̂ = −q⃗ ⃗
r ⋅ E(t) (9.128)

to the Hamiltonian.

In some derivations the quantity

q q2
V̂ = pop ⋅ A⃗ + A⃗ ⋅ p⃗op ) +
(⃗ (A⃗ ⋅ A)
⃗ + qφ (9.129)
2me c 2me c2
is chosen as the perturbation. The next step would be to expand in powers of
the potentials. Since ∇ ⋅ E ⃗ = 0 for the radiation field, we can choose ϕ = 0 and
∇ ⋅ A⃗ = 0 (if these relations were not true we could make them so with a gauge
transformation).

Therefore, we end up with an expansion in powers of A. ⃗ The first term in the

expansion is
q q ⃗
V̂Ap = − (⃗pop ⋅ A⃗ + A⃗ ⋅ p⃗op ) = − A ⋅ p⃗op (9.130)
2me c me c
since
p⃗op ⋅ A⃗ − A⃗ ⋅ p⃗op ∝ ∇ ⋅ A⃗ = 0 (9.131)
In this case, in the electric dipole approximation
⃗ ≈ constant
E , ⃗=0
B
r⃗
⃗ r, t) = −c ∫ E(⃗
A(⃗ ⃗ r, t)dt
0
r, t) = 0
φ(⃗

⃗ r, t) = E(⃗
If E(⃗ ⃗ r)e−iωt , then A⃗ = eE/iω.
⃗ Using
p⃗op i
= ̵ [Ĥ0 , r⃗op ] (9.132)
m h
we get
q ⃗
V̂Ap = − ̵ [Ĥ0 , r⃗op ] ⋅ E (9.133)
hω
We can then calculate matrix elements
q ⃗
⟨m∣ V̂Ap ∣n⟩ = − ̵ ⟨m∣ Ĥ0 r⃗op − r⃗op Ĥ0 ∣n⟩ ⋅ E
hω
q ⃗ ∣n⟩
= − ̵ (εm − εn ) ⟨m∣ r⃗op ⋅ E
hω
ωmn
= ⟨m∣ V̂ ∣n⟩ (9.134)
ω
where
εm − εn
ωmn = ̵ (9.135)
h

704
 ⃗ p⃗op ) differ from the matrix elements of
Thus, the matrix elements of V̂Ap (from A⋅
V̂ (from ϕ) by the factor ωmn /ω. This implies different transition probabilities in
first order except at resonance where ωmn /ω = 1. The reason for the differences
is as follows:

1. we assumed that the perturbation = 0 for t ≤ 0 , t ≥ T

2. there is no physical problem with V = −q⃗ ⃗ changing discontinuously

r⋅E

3. however, if A⃗ ⋅ p⃗op changes discontinuously, then the relation

⃗
⃗ = − 1 ∂A
E (9.136)
c ∂t
⃗ fields
generates spurious δ−function type E

It is clear that one must exercise great care in choosing a starting point for
perturbation theory.

9.2.2 Induced Emission and Absorption

We now look at the physics connected with the harmonic perturbation. Physi-
cally, it represents an electromagnetic wave interacting with the atom.

We consider the perturbing potential

⎧
⎪ ⃗0 (e−iωt + eiωt ) 0 < t < T
⎪−q⃗
r⋅E
V̂ = ⎨ (9.137)
⎪
⎪0 t < 0, t > T
⎩

where E⃗0 = a constant vector which tells us the strength and polarization of the
electromagnetic field.

This perturbing potential corresponds to monochromatic(single wavelength)

electromagnetic radiation.

For an initial state ∣ψ(0)⟩ = ∣i⟩ where Ĥ0 ∣i⟩ = i ∣i⟩ the probability, at any time
t ≥ T , that the atom will have a final energy f is

(1) 2
Pi→f (T ) = ∣af (T )∣ (9.138)

to first order, where we have from our earlier derivation

⟨f ∣ (−q⃗ ⃗0 ) ∣i⟩ 1 − ei(ωf i −ω)T 1 − ei(ωf i +ω)T

r⋅E
(1)
af (T ) = ̵ [ + ] (9.139)
h ωf i − ω ωf i + ω

If f > i this gives the probability amplitude for absorbing radiation and if
f < i this gives the probability amplitude for emitting radiation.

705
In the limit T → ∞, as we saw earlier, Pi→f (t) = Γi→f t which gives

⃗0 ∣i⟩∣
2πq 2 ∣⟨f ∣ r⃗ ⋅ E
2

Γi→f = ̵ + δ(εi − εf + hω)]

[δ(εi − εf − hω) ̵ (9.140)
̵
h 4
In this expression

̵ → absorption
δ(εi − εf − hω)
̵ → emission
δ(εi − εf + hω)

We then have the transition rates

⃗0 ∣i⟩∣2
2πq 2 ∣⟨f ∣ r⃗ ⋅ E
Γai→f = Γei→f = ̵ (9.141)
h 4
These expressions are zero/nonzero or transitions are not-allowed/allowed de-
pending on the matrix element of the perturbation, i.e.,

if for i → f ⃗0 ∣i⟩ = 0, then the transition i → f is not allowed

⟨f ∣ r⃗ ⋅ E

These relationships between the quantum numbers of the initial and final states
that tell us whether or not a transition is allowed are called selection rules.

To determine the selection rules for one-electron atoms we only need to consider
matrix elements of the form

⃗0 ∣n`m` ms ⟩
⟨n′ `′ m`′ ms′ ∣ r⃗ ⋅ E (9.142)

or we need to look at three matrix elements, namely,

⟨n′ `′ m`′ ms′ ∣ x̂ ∣n`m` ms ⟩ , ⟨n′ `′ m`′ ms′ ∣ ŷ ∣n`m` ms ⟩ and ⟨n′ `′ m`′ ms′ ∣ ẑ ∣n`m` ms ⟩

Now

z = r cos θ ∝ rY10 = x3 (9.143)

x = r sin θ cos ϕ ∝ r(Y11 + Y1,−1 ) = x1 (9.144)
y = r sin θ sin ϕ ∝ r(Y11 − Y1,−1 ) = x2 (9.145)

A typical matrix element, therefore, will have a term like the following:

⟨sms′ ∣ sms ⟩ ∫ Rn′ `′ (r)Rn` (r)r3 dr ∫ Y`∗′ m`′ Y`m` Y1m dΩ (9.146)

where m = ±1, 0.

The radial integral would equal zero only by accident implying that it is not
part of the general selection rules, which must come from the other terms.

706
The term ⟨sms′ ∣ sms ⟩ = δms′ ms gives us a simple selection rule (this simple rule
arises here because the interaction does not depend on spin). We have

ms′ = ms → the ∆ms = 0 SELECTION RULE (9.147)

The rest of the selection rules come from the angular integration terms
∗
∫ Y`′ m`′ Y`m` Y1m dΩ (9.148)

This integral equals 0 unless ` + `′ + 1 = an even integer. This rule follows from
parity considerations. For any angular integration over all angles to be nonzero,
the integrand must be even under the parity operation.

Now
Y`m → (−1)` Y`m (9.149)
under the parity operation. Therefore

Y`∗′ m`′ Y`m` Y1m → (−1)`+` +1 Y`∗′ m`′ Y`m` Y1m

′
(9.150)

which gives the stated rule.

The θ−integration says that we must have

∣`′ − `∣ ≤ 1 ≤ `′ + `

This corresponds to thinking of the integrand as made up of two states, namely,

⟨` ′ m`′ ∣ ( ∣`m` ⟩ ⊗ ∣1m⟩)

Our angular momentum addition rules say that

∣`m` ⟩ ⊗ ∣1m⟩ = ∣` + 1⟩ ⊕ ∣`⟩ ⊕ ∣` − 1⟩

and the selection rule then follows from the orthogonality condition.

The two `−rules when combined imply the selection rule

∆m` = m`′ − m` = ±1,0 SELECTION RULE (9.151)

Thus, for transitions within the electric dipole approximation, as defined above,
we have the SELECTION RULES

∆m` = m`′ − m` = ±1 , 0 (9.152)

′
∆` = ` − ` = ±1 (9.153)
∆ms = 0 = ∆s (9.154)

The derivation is more complex for multi-electron atoms due the complexity of
the wave function (see next chapter), but it can be shown that, in general, the
SELECTION RULES in the electric dipole approximation are

707
 1. parity changes
2. ∆(∑ `i ) = ±1
3. ∆S = 0
4. ∆MS = 0
5. ∆L = ±1, 0 (possibility of 0 which is not allowed for 1-electron atoms)
6. ∆ML = ±1, 0
7. ∆J = ±1, 0
8. ∆MJ = ±1, 0
9. J = 0 → J = 0 is strictly forbidden

9.3 A Real Physical Process - Ionization

We now carry out the calculations of the transition rate for the ionization(transition
to the continuum) of hydrogen by electromagnetic radiation.

The initial state of the electron is the ground state of hydrogen

e2
∣i⟩ = ∣100⟩ with energy εi = ε100 = − (9.155)
2a0
The final state of the electron in the ionization process is a free particle state(ionized
electron)
⇀ ̵ 2 k2
h
∣f ⟩ = ∣k⟩ with energy εf = εk = (9.156)
2m
We then have
⃗ =h
p⃗op ∣k⟩ ̵ k⃗ ∣k⟩
⃗ (9.157)
which says this is a momentum eigenstate also (for free particles [Ĥ, p⃗op ] = 0
and momentum and energy have the same eigenstates). The momentum is given
̵ k.
by p⃗ = h ⃗ Since εf > εi this is an absorption process and thus the transition
rate is given by
P0→k⃗ (t)
Γ0→k⃗ = transitionrate = lim
t→∞ t
2π ⃗ 2
̵
= ̵ ∣⟨k∣ V̂ ∣100⟩∣ δ(εk − ε100 − hω) (9.158)
h
where ω = frequency of the electromagnetic radiation and

r ⋅ E⃗ (electric dipole approximation)

V̂ = −e⃗
E⃗ = the electric field vector

708
We define

dΓ = rate of transition into a small solid angle dΩ

= ∑ Γ0→k⃗ (9.159)
⃗ in dΩ
k

For convenience we use a common trick and assume that the universe is a large
box (side = L, volume = L3 ). This allows us to normalize the plane wave states
associated with the free electron. We have
⃗r
⟨⃗ ⃗ = Aeik⋅⃗
r ∣ k⟩ (9.160)
⟨k⃗ ∣ k⟩
⃗ = 1 = ∫ d3 r⃗ ⟨k⃗ ∣ r⃗⟩ ⟨⃗ ⃗
r ∣ k⟩
⃗ ⃗
= A2 ∫ d3 r⃗e−ik⋅⃗r eik⋅⃗r = A2 ∫ d3 r⃗ = A2 L3 (9.161)

or
1
A= (9.162)
L3/2
Now there are

d3 k⃗ L3 L3 mk
L3 = dΩk 2
dk = ̵ 2 dΩdεk (9.163)
(2π)3 (2π)3 (2π)3 h

states in the volume d3 k⃗ of phase space. This implies that there are

L3 mk
̵2 (9.164)
(2π)3 h

states per unit energy per unit solid angle.

Therefore,
∞
L3 mk πe2 ⃗ ̵
r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ∣100⟩∣ δ(εk − ε100 − hω)
2
dΓ = ∑ Γ0→k⃗ → dΩ ∫ ̵ dεk ̵ ∣⟨k∣
⃗
kindΩ
(2π) h
3 2 2h
0

Doing the integration (using the delta function) we get

L3 mke2 ⃗
∣⟨k∣ r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ∣100⟩∣
2
dΓ = dΩ 2 ̵ 3
(9.165)
16π h
where
̵2 2
̵ =h k
εk = ε100 + hω (9.166)
2m
1/2
2mω 1
k = ( ̵ − 2) (9.167)
h a0

709
9.3.1 Evaluation of the Matrix Element
We have

⃗ r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ∣100⟩ = ∫ d3 r⃗ ⟨k⃗ ∣ r⃗⟩ ⟨⃗

⟨k∣ r∣ r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ∣100⟩
1 ⃗r
= 3 −ik⋅⃗
∫ d r⃗e r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ⟨⃗
r ∣ 100⟩
L3/2
1 ⃗
⃗ 10 (r)Y00
= 3/2 ∫ d3 r⃗e−ik⋅⃗r r⃗ ⋅ ER
L
2 ⃗r − r
= 3/2 3 −ik⋅⃗
∫ d r⃗e e a0 r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ (9.168)
a0 L 3/2

We can arbitrarily choose k⃗ = kẑ which gives

⃗ r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ∣100⟩ = 2
r⃗ ⋅ E⃗
−ikr cos θ− ar
⟨k∣ 3/2
2
∫ dΩdrr e 0 (9.169)
a0 L3/2

using k⃗ ⋅ R
⃗ = kz = kr cos θ. Now in spherical-polar coordinates we have

E⃗ = E (sin θε cos ϕε êx + sin θε sin ϕε êz + cos θε êz ) (9.170)

r⃗ = r (sin θ cos ϕêx + sin θ sin ϕêy + cos θêz ) (9.171)

so that
E⃗ ⋅ r⃗ = Er (cos θ cos θε + sin θ sin θε cos(ϕ − ϕε )) (9.172)
We then have

⃗ r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ∣100⟩
⟨k∣
2π π
2ε −ikr cos θ− ar
= 3/2 ∫ dϕ ∫ sin θdθ ∫ drr3 e 0 [cos θ cos θε + sin θ sin θε cos(ϕ − ϕε )]
a0 L3/2 0 0

Since
2π 2π

∫ dϕ cos ϕ = ∫ dϕ sin ϕ =0 (9.173)

0 0

the ϕ− integration wipes out the cos(ϕ − ϕε ) term. Letting x = cos θ we then
have
1⎡ ∞ ⎤
4πE cos θε ⎢ ⎥
⃗ ⃗
⟨k∣ r⃗ ⋅ E ∣100⟩ = 3/2 ⎢ 3 −ikrx− ar0 ⎥
∫ ⎢∫ drr e ⎥xdx (9.174)
a0 L 3/2 ⎢ ⎥
−1 ⎣ 0 ⎦
Now
∞ ∞
−ikrx− ar 3! 6
3
∫ drr e 0 = ∫ drr3 e−αr = = 4
(9.175)
α4 (ikx + 1
)
0 0 a0

710
Therefore, we have
1
⃗ r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ∣100⟩ = 4πE cos θε ∫
⟨k∣
6x
dx
3/2 3/2 4
a0 L −1 (ikx + a )
1
0

4πE cos θε 16ka50

= (9.176)
3/2
a0 L3/2 (1 + k 2 a20 )3

and
⃗ r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ∣100⟩∣2 = 4096π E cos θε a0 k
2 2 2 7 2
∣⟨k∣ (9.177)
L3 (1 + k 2 a20 )6
where
2mω 1
k2 = ̵h − a2 (9.178)
0

Finally, we get

L3 mke2 ⃗ r⃗ ⋅ E⃗ ∣100⟩∣2
Γionization = ∫ dΓ = 2 ̵ 3 ∫ dΩk⃗ ∣⟨k∣ (9.179)
16π h
where

dΩk⃗ = integration over the angles of k⃗

(varies direction of arbitrary z - axis)

However, varying the z-direction is the same as keeping E⃗ fixed and integrating
over dΩE⃗. Therefore, we have

L3 mke2 4096π 2 E 2 a70 k 2

Γionization = 2
̵ 3 L3 (1 + k 2 a2 )6 ∫ dΩE⃗ cos θε
16π 2 h 0
64πme2 E 2 a70 k3
= ̵ (9.180)
3h 3 (1 + k 2 a2 )6 0

Now
2mωa20
1 + k 2 a20 = ̵ (9.181)
h
and letting
̵
h
ω0 = (9.182)
2ma20
we find that
1/2
ω 1 ω
1 + k 2 a20 = and k = ( − 1) (9.183)
ω0 a0 ω0
and we get
64πe2 E 2 a30 ω0 6 ω 3/2
Γionization = ̵ ( ) ( − 1) (9.184)
3h ω ω0

711
Thus, there exists a threshold energy for this process, i.e., it cannot occur unless
the energy of the photon is greater than a minimum amount, which makes
physical sense. In particular, we must have ω ≥ ω0 so that

̵ 0 = ∣ε100 ∣ = Eionization = minimum = threshold

hω (9.185)

We also get the correct 6th −power term in the answer which agrees with exper-
iment.

9.4 Adiabatic and Sudden Approximations

In standard time-dependent perturbation theory, we assume that the time-
dependent perturbation is weak. An alternative approach, where we assume
the time-dependence is slow, is called the adiabatic approximation.

Suppose that Ĥ = Ĥ(g(t)), where g(t) tells us the dependence on time. This
might correspond to a variation in time of some parameters. We still have

̵ d
ih ∣ψ(t)⟩ = Ĥ(g(t)) ∣ψ(t)⟩ (9.186)
dt
and at any instant of time we have

Ĥ(g(t)) ∣n(g(t))⟩ = En (g(t)) ∣n(g(t))⟩ (9.187)

where n(g(t)) represents the quantum numbers describing the instantaneous

state vector.

Let us assume that the instantaneous eigenvectors always form a complete set
so that we can write

∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∑ αn (t)eiβn (t) ∣n(g(t))⟩ (9.188)

n

where we have generalized the phase factor

e− h̵ εn t
i
(9.189)

that appeared in a similar expression in our earlier derivations to include the

term
t
1
βn (t) = − ̵ ∫ En (g(t′ ))dt′ (9.190)
h
0

which is called the dynamical phase.

Inserting this expression for the state vector ∣ψ(t)⟩ into the time-dependent

712
Schrodinger equation we get

d iβ (t) iβ (t)
ih ∑ αn (t)e n ∣n(g(t))⟩ = Ĥ(g(t)) ∑ αn (t)e n ∣n(g(t))⟩
dt n n

̵∑ dαn (t) iβn (t) deiβn (t)

ih e ∣n(g(t))⟩ + ih ∑ αn (t) ∣n(g(t))⟩
n dt n dt
d
+ ih ∑ αn (t)eiβn (t) ∣n(g(t))⟩
n dt
= ∑ αn (t)eiβn (t) Ĥ(g(t)) ∣n(g(t))⟩ = ∑ αn (t)eiβn (t) En (g(t)) ∣n(g(t))⟩
n n

̵∑ dαn (t) iβn (t) dβn (t) iβn (t)

ih e ∣n(g(t))⟩ + ih ∑ αn (t)i e ∣n(g(t))⟩
n dt n dt
d
+ ih ∑ αn (t)eiβn (t) ∣n(g(t))⟩ = ∑ αn (t)eiβn (t) En (g(t)) ∣n(g(t))⟩
n dt n

Now
t
dβn (t) 1 d 1
= − ̵ ∫ En (g(t′ ))dt′ = − ̵ En (g(t)) (9.191)
dt h dt h
0

Therefore, we get

dαn (t) iβn (t) d

∑ e ∣n(g(t))⟩ + ∑ αn (t)eiβn (t) ∣n(g(t))⟩ = 0 (9.192)
n dt n dt

Applying the linear functional

⟨m∣ = ⟨m(g(t))∣ (9.193)

from the left we get

dαn iβn d
∑ e ⟨m ∣ n⟩ + ∑ αn eiβn ⟨m∣ ∣n⟩ = 0 (9.194)
n dt n dt

Using
⟨m ∣ n⟩ = δmn (9.195)
we have
dαm iβm d
e = − ∑ αn eiβn ⟨m∣ ∣n⟩ (9.196)
dt n dt
dαm d
= − ∑ αn ei(βn −βm ) ⟨m∣ ∣n⟩ (9.197)
dt n dt

Now taking the time derivative of the eigenvalue equation we have

dĤ d dEn d
∣n⟩ + Ĥ ∣n⟩ = ∣n⟩ + En ∣n⟩ (9.198)
dt dt dt dt

713
Again, applying the linear functional ⟨m∣ from the left we get

dĤ d dEn d
⟨m∣ ∣n⟩ + ⟨m∣ Ĥ ∣n⟩ = ⟨m ∣ n⟩ + En ⟨m∣ ∣n⟩ (9.199)
dt dt dt dt

For m ≠ n, using ⟨m∣ Ĥ = ⟨m∣ Em , we have

dĤ d d
⟨m∣ ∣n⟩ + Em ⟨m∣ ∣n⟩ = En ⟨m∣ ∣n⟩ (9.200)
dt dt dt
d ⟨m∣ dĤ
∣n⟩
⟨m∣ ∣n⟩ = dt
(9.201)
dt En − Em
Thus, we finally have

dαm ⟨m∣ ddt

Ĥ
∣n⟩
= ∑ αn ei(βn −βm ) (9.202)
dt n Em − En

We choose the initial state to be one of the instantaneous eigenvectors

∣ψ(0)⟩ = ∣n(g(0))⟩ (9.203)

which implies that

αn (0) = 1
αm (0) = 0 m ≠ n

Therefore, for m ≠ n at small t we have

dαm ⟨m∣ ddt

Ĥ
∣n⟩
≈ ei(βn −βm )t (9.204)
dt Em − En
We now assume that
dĤ
⟨m∣∣n⟩ and Em − En (9.205)
dt
have slow time dependence and that to this order of approximation we can write

ei(βn −βm )t = ei(Em −En ) h̵

t
(9.206)

which is what we would have if there was no extra time dependence.

We then get
⟨m∣ ddt
Ĥ
∣n⟩
̵
αm (t) ≈ −ih [ei(Em −En )t − 1] (9.207)
(Em − En )2
This implies that
αm (t) remains small for m ≠ n (9.208)

714
The adiabatic theorem assumes that in the case where the system starts in an
eigenstate ∣n⟩ at t = 0, i.e.,

αm (t) = 0 m ≠ n (9.209)

and that
∣ψ(t)⟩ = e−iβn t ∣n(g(t))⟩ (9.210)
which says that if the system was in the eigenstate ∣n⟩ at t = 0, i.e.,

Ĥ(g(0)) ∣n⟩ = Ĥ0 ∣n⟩ = εn ∣n⟩ (9.211)

then at a later time t, it is still in the same eigenstate ∣n(g(t))⟩ of the new
Hamiltonian Ĥ(g(t)), i.e.,

Ĥ(g(t)) ∣n(t)⟩ = En (t) ∣n(t)⟩ (9.212)

This result is independent of the size of the perturbation. It depends only on

the change in time being slow.

This means that if we start with a particle in the ground state of a harmonic
oscillator potential
1
V = k(0)x2 → ψ0 (k(0), x) (9.213)
2
and assume that
k(0) → k(T ) (9.214)
slowly, the particle ends up in the ground state of the harmonic oscillator po-
tential
1
V = k(T )x2 → ψ0 (k(T ), x) (9.215)
2
to within a phase factor.

The opposite result comes from the so-called sudden approximation , where the
change occurs so fast that no changes of the state vector are possible.

Since the state vector does not change at all, if you are in the ground state and
a sudden change in the parameters occurs, then you remain in the ground state
for the old parameters. This is not the ground state with new parameters. It is
some linear combination of the new states.

Let us look at the adiabatic approximation in another way. We consider a time

dependent part of the Hamiltonian of the form

Ĥ(t) = Ĥ0 + Ĥ ′ , Ĥ ′ = V̂ f (t) (9.216)

where f (t) has the form shown in Figure 9.5 below.

715
 Figure 9.5: Time Dependence

We assume that the particle starts out in the nth eigenstate of Ĥ0 = Ĥ(0)

∣ψ(0)⟩ = ∣n⟩i (9.217)

where the subscripts are

i → initial parameters
f → final parameters

The state vectors is assumed to change in time to ∣ψ(t)⟩.

If V̂ is small, we can write, using first order time-independent perturbation

theory
Vkm
∣m⟩f = ∣m⟩i + ∑ ∣k⟩i (9.218)
k≠m m − Ek
E
where
Vkm = i ⟨k∣ V̂ ∣m⟩i (9.219)
On the other hand, first order time-dependent perturbation theory implies that

∣ψ(t)⟩ = ∑ αn (t)e− h̵ En t ∣n⟩i

i
(9.220)
n

with
t
i
αn (t) = 1 − ̵ Vnn ∫ f (t′ )dt′ (9.221)
h
0
t
i t′
αm (t) = − ̵ Vmn ∫ f (t′ )ei(Em −En ) h̵ dt′ , m≠n (9.222)
h
0

716
Now we are assuming that df /dt is small, we integrate by parts to get
t
i t′
αm (t) = − ̵ Vmn ∫ f (t′ )ei(Em −En ) h̵ dt′
h
0
t
Vmn ′ d i(Em −En ) th
′
=− ∫ f (t ) ′ [e
̵
] dt′
Em − En dt
0
t
Vmn t′
=− [f (t′ )ei(Em −En ) h̵ ]
Em − En 0
t
Vmn df (t′ ) i(Em −En ) th̵′ ′
+ ∫ e dt (9.223)
Em − En dt′
0

Using f (0) = 0 and neglecting the last term because df /dt is small gives
⎡ ⎤ i
⎢ Vnn Vqn ⎥
∣ψ(T )⟩ = ⎢(1 − i ̵ γ) ∣n⟩i − ∑ ∣q⟩i ⎥ e− h̵ En T (9.224)
⎢ h E − E ⎥
⎣ q≠n q n ⎦
where
T
γ = ∫ f (t)dt (9.225)
0
Therefore
⎡ ⎤ i
Vkn ⎢ Vnn Vqn ⎥
⟨n ∣ ψ(T )⟩ = [i ⟨n∣ + ∑ i ⟨k∣] ⎢(1 − i ̵ γ) ∣n⟩i − ∑ ∣q⟩i ⎥ e− h̵ En T
f
E − E ⎢ h E − E ⎥
k≠n n k ⎣ q≠n q n ⎦
⎡ ∣Vqn ∣
2 ⎤
⎢ Vnn ⎥ − h̵i En T
= ⎢1 − i ̵ γ + ∑ ⎥e (9.226)
⎢ h q≠n (En − Eq ) ⎦
2 ⎥
⎣

⎡ ⎤ i
Vkm ⎢ Vnn Vqn ⎥
⟨m ∣ ψ(T )⟩ = [i ⟨m∣ + ∑ i ⟨k∣] ⎢(1 − i ̵ γ) ∣n⟩i − ∑ ∣q⟩i ⎥ e− h̵ En T
f
k≠m Em − Ek
⎢ h E − E ⎥
⎣ q≠n q n ⎦
Vnn Vnm Vnk Vkm
] e− h̵ En T
i
= [−iγ ̵ + ∑
h(Em − En ) m≠k≠n (En − Ek )(Em − Ek )
(9.227)
Note that all the first order terms cancel in the last expression. If we only keep
terms to first order (which is consistent with the derivation) we then have
⎧
⎪
⎪[1 − i Vhnn
̵ γ] k = n
f ⟨k ∣ ψ(T )⟩ = ⎨ (9.228)
⎪
⎪0 k≠n
⎩
which implies that
2
2 ∣Vnn ∣ γ 2
∣f ⟨n ∣ ψ(T )⟩∣ = 1 + ̵2 → 1 to first order
h
2
∣f ⟨m ∣ ψ(T )⟩∣ = 0 to first order m ≠ n

717
which is the adiabatic approximation.

Therefore, the adiabatic approximation says:

if the Hamiltonian Ĥ(t) changes slowly in time,

then there will be no transitions from the
eigenstate ∣n⟩i of Ĥ(0) to a different
eigenstate ∣m⟩f of Ĥ(t)

In time-dependent perturbation theory, we assume the perturbation is turned

on and off and thus Ĥ(0) = Ĥ(T ), i.e., we have the same unperturbed Hamil-
tonian at the end.

The transitions in that case are from one eigenvector of the unperturbed Hamil-
tonian to another eigenvector of the same unperturbed Hamiltonian.

This implies a first-order transition amplitude and hence a second-order transi-

tion probability.

In the adiabatic approximation, however, we have a second-order transition am-

plitude (m ≠ n) and hence a fourth-order transition probability. That is why we
can assume that the transition probability for m ≠ n is equal to zero.

The first derivation gives the adiabatic approximation for any size perturbation.
In the second derivation,however, we not only assumed a slow change in time,
but also assumes a small perturbation so that we could use first order pertur-
bation theory.

What happens in the second derivation if the perturbation is not small?

The way to handle this is to divide the time interval (0, T ) into N subintervals
such that the perturbation ∆V is small within any subinterval. In fact, it is of
O(V /N ). Thus, if N is large, ∆V is small.

We then apply our arguments to each subinterval. If the transition amplitude is

first-order in the perturbation, then the total transition amplitude behaves like

V
N( )→V (9.229)
N

with each of the N steps giving a contribution proportional to ∆V . This says

that the net result is of order V , and thus, if V is large, the transition amplitude
will be large.

However, the transition amplitude is second-order and thus the total transition

718
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
death from which she wished to save that father’s brother. The duke
was civil and compassionate, but would make no promise. In fact, it
was resolved that the younger brother of the Earl of Derwentwater
should die, lying as he did under the guilt of double rebellion. ‘If I am
to die,’ said Radcliffe, splenetically, ‘Lord Morton ought to be
executed at Paris, on the same day.’ Morton was a gossiping tourist,
who, being in Brittany, made some idle reflections on the defences of
Port L’Orient in a private letter, which the French postal authorities
took the liberty to open. This brought the writer into some difficulty in
France, but as no harm was meant, Lord Morton suffered none.
The ever-to-be-amused public were not left without TO
diversity of grim entertainment between the KENNINGTON
condemnation of Radcliffe and the execution of his COMMON.
sentence. On Friday, November 28th, there was the
strangling (with the other repulsive atrocities), of five political
prisoners, on Kennington Common, in the morning, and the revival of
a play (which had years before been condemned because of the
political opinions of the author), in the evening. In the morning, two
sledges stood ready for the dragging of eight prisoners from the New
Prison, Southwark, to the gallows, disembowelling block, and fire, on
the Common. This was not an unfrequent spectacle; and on this
occasion, as on others, there was, without cowardly feeling, a certain
dilatoriness on the part of the patients, who never knew what five
minutes might not bring forth. Sir John Wedderburn, indeed, went
into the foremost sledge, with calm readiness, and Governor (of
Carlisle) Hamilton stept in beside him. Captain Bradshaw stood
apart, hoping not to be called upon. There was a little stir at the gate
which attracted feverish attention on the part of the patients.—‘Is
there any news for me?’ asked Bradshaw, nervously. ‘Yes,’ replied a
frank official, ‘the Sheriff is come and waits for you!’ Bradshaw had
hoped for a reprieve; but hope quenched, the poor fellow said he
was ready. Another Manchester Captain, Leath, was equally ready
but was not inclined to put himself forward. Captain Wood, after the
halter was loosely hung for him around his neck, called for wine,
which was supplied with alacrity by the prison drawers. When it was
served round, the captain drank to the health of the rightful king,
James III. Most lucky audacity was this for Lindsay, a fellow officer
from Manchester, bound for Kennington. While the wine was being
drunk, Lindsay was ‘haltering,’ as the reporters called it. He was nice
about the look of the rope, but just as he was being courteously
invited to get in and be hanged, a reprieve came for him, which
saved his life. Two other doomed rebels, for whom that day was to
be their last, had been reprieved earlier in the morning, and that was
why the puzzled spectators, on the way or at the place of sacrifice,
were put off with five judicial murders when they had promised
themselves eight.
In the evening, the play which was to tempt the CIBBER’S
town was a revival of Cibber’s ‘Refusal, or the Ladies’ ‘REFUSAL.’
Philosophy.’ It had not been acted for a quarter of a
century (1721), when it had failed through the opposition of the
Jacobites, who damned the comedy, by way of revenge for the satire
which Cibber had heaped on the Nonjurors. Now, the play went
triumphantly. No one dared,—when the hangman was breathless
with over-work, and the headsman was looking to the edge of his
axe, for the ultimate disposal of Jacobites,—to openly avow himself
of a way of thinking which, put into action, sent men to the block or
the gallows. All that could be done in a hostile spirit was done,
nevertheless. The Jacks accused Cibber of having stolen his plot
from predecessors equally felonious; but they could not deny that the
play was a good play; and they asserted, in order to annoy the Whig
adaptor, that the Witling of Theophilus Cibber was a finer touch of art
than that of his father in the same part.
On the 8th of December, Charles Radcliffe closed EXECUTION
the bloody tragedies of the year, with his own. He OF
came from the Tower like a man purified in spirit, RADCLIFFE.
prepared to meet the inevitable with dignity. They who
had denied his right to call himself a peer, allowed him to die by the
method practised with offenders of such high quality. The only bit of
bathos in the scene on the scaffold was when the poor gentleman
knelt by the side of the block, to pray. Two warders approached him,
who took off his wig, and then covered his head with a white skull
cap. His head was struck off at a blow, except, say the detail-loving
newspapers, ‘a bit of skin which was cut through in two chops.’ The
individual most to be pitied on that December morning was
Radcliffe’s young son, prisoner in the Tower, who was still believed
by many to be the brother of the young Chevalier.
There was another prisoner there whose life was in peril; namely
Simon, Lord Lovat. The progress up to London of Lovat and of the
witnesses to be produced against him was regularly reported. There
was one of the latter who hardly knew whether he was to be traitor or
witness, Mr. Murray of Boughton. The following describes how he
appeared on his arrival at Newcastle, and is a sample of similar
bulletins. ‘July 17th. On Thursday Afternoon, arrived here in a Coach
under the Care of Lieutenant Colonel Cockayne, escorted by a Party
of Dragoons, John Murray, Esq., of Boughton, the Pretenders
Secretary, and yesterday Morning he proceeded to London. He
seem’d exceedingly dejected and looked very pale.’
The London papers sketched in similar light LOVAT’S
touches the progress of Lovat. In or on the same PROGRESS.
carriage in which he sat were other Frasers, his
servants or retainers who, as he knew, were about to testify against
him, and whose company rendered him extremely irritable. The
whole were under cavalry escort, travelling to London, only by day.
On the morning Lovat left his inn at Northampton, the landlady was
not there to bid him farewell. The old gallant enquired for her. He
was told that she was unavoidably absent. ‘I have kissed,’ said he,
‘every one of my hostesses throughout the journey; and am sorry to
miss my Northampton landlady. No matter! I will salute her on my
way back!’ On Lovat’s arrival at St. Albans, Hogarth left London, for
what purpose is explained in part of the following advertisement,
which appears in the papers under the date of Thursday, August
28th. ‘This day is published, price one shilling, a whole length print of
Simon Lord Lovat, drawn from the life and etch’d in Aqua fortis, by
Mr. Hogarth. To be had at the Golden Head, in Leicester Fields, and
at the Print shops. Where also may be had a Print of Mr. Garrick in
the character of Richard III., in the first scene, price 7s. 6d.’
On the day on which the above advertisement HOGARTH’S
appeared, the Rev. Mr. Harris enclosed one of the PORTRAIT OF
sketches of Lovat in a letter to Mrs. Harris, written in LOVAT.
Grosvenor Square, in which he says:—‘Pray excuse my sending you
such a very grotesque figure as the enclosed. It is really an exact
resemblance of the person it was done for—Lord Lovat—as those
who are well acquainted with him assure me; and, as you see, it is
neatly enough etched. Hogarth took the pains to go to St. Albans,
the evening that Lord Lovat came thither in his way from Scotland to
the Tower, on purpose to get a fair view of his Lordship before he
was locked up; and this he obtained with a greater ease than could
well be expected; for, in sending in his name and the errand he came
about, the old lord, far from displeased, immediately had him in,
gave him a salute and made him sit down and sup with him, and
talked a good deal very facetiously, so that Hogarth had all the
leisure and opportunity he could possibly wish to have, to take off his
features and countenance. The portrait you have may be considered
as an original. The old lord is represented in the very attitude he was
in while telling Hogarth and the company some of his adventures.’
The old roystering Lovelace who kissed his ARRIVAL AT
hostesses on his way up, and talked of saluting them THE TOWER.
on his way back, was so infirm that to descend from
his carriage he leaned heavily on the shoulders of two stout men,
who put their arms round his back to keep him from falling. As he
crossed Tower Hill he came suddenly on the partly dismantled
scaffold on which the two lords had recently suffered; and he was
heard to mutter something as to his perception of the way it was
intended he should go. But, on being lifted from the carriage, he said
to the lieutenant, ‘If I were younger and stronger, you would find it
difficult to keep me here.’—‘We have kept much younger men here,’
was the reply. ‘Yes,’ rejoined Lovat, ‘but they were inexperienced;
they had not broke so many gaols as I have.’ The first news
circulated in London after Murray, the Chevalier’s ex-secretary, had
passed into the same prison, was that he had given information
where a box of papers, belonging to the Pretender, was buried, near
Inverness. A couple of king’s messengers riding briskly towards the
great North Road were taken to be those charged with unearthing
the important deposit.
 Of the two prisoners,—one was eager to save his life by giving all
the information required of him. The other, equally eager, pleaded his
innocence, his age, and his debility; but apart from declaring that he
was a loyal subject, and that he willingly had no share in the
rebellion, although his son had, he remained obstinately mute to all
questioning, or he answered the grave queries with senile banter.
Murray yielded at the first pressure. As early as REBELS AND
July, Walpole speaks of him as having made ‘ample WITNESSES.
confessions, which led to the arrest of the Earl of
Traquair and Dr. Barry; and to the issuing of warrants for the
apprehension of other persons whom Murray’s information had put in
peril. Walpole believed that the Ministry had little trustworthy
knowledge of the springs and conduct of the rebellion, till Murray sat
down in the Tower and furnished them with genuine intelligence.
While he and Lord Lovat were travelling slowly by land to the
Tower, traitors were coming up, by sea, to depose against him, or
any other, by whose conviction they might purchase safety. The
‘General Advertiser’ announced the arrival in London (from a ship in
the river) of six and twenty ‘Scotch rebels,’ who were conducted to
the Plaisterer’s Corner, St. Margaret’s Lane, Westminster, where
they were kept under a strong military guard. ‘They are brought up,’
says the above paper, ‘as evidences for the king. Several of them
are young. Some have plaids on; others in waistcoats and bonnets,
and upon the whole make a most despicable and wretched figure.’
Meanwhile Lovat struggled hard for the life he affected to despise,
and which he tried to persuade his accusers was not worth the
taking. He kept them at bay, for months, by his pleas; and he
vehemently declared his innocence of every one of the seven heads
of accusation brought against him,—of every one of which he was
certainly guilty. Towards the close of December, he was arraigned at
the bar of the House of Lords. There is no better condensation of
what took place than that furnished by Walpole, on Christmas Day,
1746:—‘Old Lovat has been brought to the bar of the House of
Lords. He is far from having those abilities for which he has been so
cried up. He saw Mr. Pelham at a distance, and called to him, and
asked him, if it were worth while to make all this fuss to take off a
grey head fourscore years old. He complained of his estate being
seized and kept from him. Lord Granville took up this complaint very
strongly, and insisted on having it enquired into. Lord Bath went
farther and, as some people think, intended the duke; but I believe
he only aimed at the Duke of Newcastle.... They made a rule to order
the old creature the profits of his estate till his conviction. He is to put
in his answer on the 13th of January.’
In the meantime, the papers reported that there TILBURY
were nearly four hundred Scottish rebels cooped up FORT.
in Tilbury Fort. Watermen’s arms were weary with
rowing boats full of Londoners down to the fort, to visit the wretched
captives, or to stare at the fort which held them in. Most of them
were transported to the Plantations. There was a sanguinary feeling
against all such offenders. The last words in the ‘General Advertiser’
for December 31st, 1746, are contained in the two concluding lines
of a poem, signed ‘Williamite,’ and which are to the following
charitable effect:—
A righteous God, with awful hands,
In justice, Blood for Blood demands.
At the same time a print was selling which represented ‘Temple
Bar, the City Golgotha,’ with three heads on the spikes,—allegorical
devils, rebel flags, &c.,—and more ‘blood for blood’ doggrel
intimating that the naughty sons of Britain might there see ‘what is
rebellion’s due.’
The idea of altogether sacrificing Charles Edward FRENCH IDEA.
was as distasteful to his numberless friends in
France, as it was to the English Jacobites. One of the most singular
of the French suggestions for a definite arrangement was made to
this effect, in some of the French papers, namely:—that George II.
should withdraw to his electorate of Hanover, taking his eldest son
and heir with him; renouncing the English crown for himself and
successors, of the elder line, for ever;—that the Chevalier de St.
George should remain as he was;—that the Prince Charles Edward
should be made King of Scotland and Ireland;—and that the Duke of
Cumberland should, as King of England, reign in London. It was a
thoroughly French idea,—making a partition of the United Kingdom,
and establishing the duke in the metropolis to reign over a powerless
fragment of it,—a Roi de Cocagne! Both political parties laughed at it
in their several houses of entertainment.
The Prince of Wales, himself, was something of a Jacobite; but he
was a Jacobite for no other reason, probably, than because his
brother, the Duke of Cumberland, had crushed the Jacobite cause. It
is due to the Prince, however, to notice that he once solemnly
expressed his sympathy when the Princess, his wife, had just
mentioned, ‘with some appearance of censure,’ the conduct of Lady
Margaret Macdonald, who harboured and concealed Prince Charles
when, in the extremity of peril, he threw himself on her protection.
‘And would not you, Madam,’ enquired Prince Frederick, ‘have done
the same, in the same circumstances? I am sure,—I hope in God,—
you would.’ Hogg relates this incident in the introduction to his
‘Jacobite Relics,’ and it does honour to the prince, himself,—who
used at least to profess fraternal affection, if not political sympathy,
by standing at an open window at St. James’s overlooking the Park,
with his arm round the Duke of Cumberland’s neck.
Frederick, however, was not a jot more acceptable A LONDON
to the Jacobites, because he was on bad terms with ELECTOR’S
the king, and that he refrained from paying any other WIT.
compliment than the above-named one to the Duke of
Cumberland, on his victory at Culloden. The prince invariably came
off, more or less hurt, whenever he engaged personally in politics.
When his sedan-chair maker refused to vote for the prince’s friend,
Lord Trentham, a messenger from his royal highness’s household
looked in upon the elector, and bluntly said, ‘I am going to bid
another person make his royal highness a chair!’ ‘With all my heart!’
replied the chair maker, ‘I don’t care what they make him, so they
don’t make him a throne!’ Again, on that day which all Tories kept as
an anniversary of crime and sorrow, the 30th of January,—‘the
martyrdom of King Charles,’ the prince entered a room where his
sister Amelia was being tended by her waiting woman, Miss Russell,
who was a great grand-daughter of Oliver Cromwell. Frederick said
to this lady, sportively, ‘Shame, Miss Russell, why have you not been
to Church, humbling yourself, for the sins on this day committed by
your ancestors?’ To which she replied, ‘Sir: I am a descendant of the
great Oliver Cromwell. It is humiliation sufficient to be employed, as I
am, in pinning up your sister’s tail!’
During the early months of 1747, the Londoners TRIAL OF
waited with impatience for the trial of Lord Lovat. The LOVAT.
old rebel had exhausted every means of delay. The
time of trial came at last. On the 9th of March, Lovat was taken from
the Tower to Westminster Hall. An immense crowd lined the whole
way, and the people were the reverse of sympathetic. One woman
looked into his coach, and said: ‘You ugly old dog, don’t you think
you will have that frightful head cut off?’ He replied, ‘You ugly old
——, I believe I shall!’ Lovat was carried through the hall in a sedan-
chair, and to a private room, in men’s arms. Mr. Thomas Harris,
writing of the trial next day, from Lincoln’s Inn, says:—‘It was the
largest and finest assembly I ever saw: the House of Commons on
one side; ladies of quality on the other, and inferior spectators
without number, at both ends.’—After much pantomimic ceremony
on the part of officials, Lovat, having been brought in, knelt (as he is
described to have done on each of the nine days of the trial). On
each occasion Lord Hardwicke solemnly said to him, ‘My Lord Lovat,
your Lordship may rise.’ On the opening day, the prosecuting
managers of the impeachment sent up by the Commons, ‘went at
him,’ at dreary, merciless, length. After them, the prosecuting
counsel opened savagely upon him, especially Murray, the Solicitor-
General, whose chief witness was his own Jacobite brother, and who
was himself suspected of having drunk the Pretender’s health on his
knees. Lovat lost no opportunity of saving his life. He
SCENE IN
pitifully alluded to his having to rise by 4 o’clock, in WESTMINSTE
order to be at Westminster by 9. He spoke of his R HALL.
frequent fainting fits; he often asked leave to retire,
and, in short, he so exasperated the Lord High Steward as to make
that official grow peevish, and to wrathfully advise Lord Lovat to keep
his temper. When the Attorney-General called his first witness,
Chevis of Murtoun, the lawyer described him, with solemn
facetiousness, as being as near a neighbour as man could be to
Lovat, but as far apart from him as was possible in thought and
action. Lovat protested against the legal competency of the witness,
he being Lovat’s tenant and vassal. Hours were spent over this
objection, and the old lord wearied the clerk, whom he called upon to
read ancient Acts of Parliament, from beginning to end. The protest
was disallowed; and the witness having been asked if he owed Lovat
money, and if a verdict of guilty might help him not to pay it,
emphatically declared that he owed Lovat nothing. He then went into
a long array of evidence, sufficient to have beheaded Lovat many
times over, as a traitor to the reigning family, and indeed no faithful
servant of the family desiring to reign. The traitor himself laughed
when this witness quoted a ballad in English, which Lovat had
composed, ‘in Erse’:—
When young Charley does come over,
There will be blows and blood good store.
‘When,’ said the witness, ‘I refused a commission offered me by the
Pretender, Lord Lovat told me I was guilty of High Treason.’ Further,
Lovat had drunk ‘Confusion to the White Horse and the whole
generation of them;’ and had cursed both the Reformation and the
Revolution. Lovat retorted by showing that this not disinterested
witness was a loyal man living at the expense of Government. ‘He is
trying to hang an old man to save himself,’ said Lovat. This was
warmly denied, but Lovat was right in the implication.
Lovat’s secretary, Fraser, was a dangerous FATHER AND
witness. He proved that, by Lord Lovat’s order, he, SON.
the secretary, wrote to Lord Loudon (in the service of
George II.) informing him that he was unable to keep his son out of
the rebellion, and another letter to the Pretender that, though unable
to go himself to help to restore the Stuarts, he had sent his eldest
son to their standard. It was shown that the son was disgusted at his
father’s double-dealing, and only yielded to him at last (in joining the
army of Charles Edward), on the ground that he was bound to obey
his sire and the chief of the clan Fraser. Undoubtedly, the attempt to
save himself by the sacrificing of his son, was the blackest spot in
Lovat’s mean, black, and cruel character. According to Walpole, ‘he
told’ Williamson, the Lieutenant of the Tower, ‘We will hang my eldest
son and then my second shall marry your niece!’
Fraser after Fraser gave adverse evidence. Lovat THE
maintained that they were compelled to speak against FRASERS.
him. One of them confessed, with much simplicity,
that he lived and boarded at a messenger’s house; but that he had
no orders to say what he had said. ‘I am free: I walk in the Park or
about Kensington; I go at night to take a glass,’—but he allowed that
the messenger went with him. One or two witnesses had very short
memories, or said what they could for their feudal superior. Another,
Walker, spoke to the anger of Lovat’s son, on being driven into
rebellion. ‘The Master of Lovat took his bonnet and threw it on the
floor. He threw the white cockade on the fire, and damned the
cockade, &c.’ Lord Lovat, on the other hand, had sworn he would
seize the cattle and plaids of all the Frasers who refused to rise, and
would burn their houses. One of these adverse Frasers, being hard
pressed by Lovat, allowed that he expected to escape punishment,
for his evidence, but that he had not been promised a pardon. ‘If,’
said he, ‘I give evidence, in any case it should be the truth; and,’ he
added, with a composure so comic that it might well have disturbed
the august solemnity, ‘if the truth were such as I should not care to
disclose, I would declare positively I would give no evidence at all.’
Another witness, a Lieutenant Campbell, in the king’s service, but
who had been a prisoner in the power of the Jacobites, being
questioned as to a conversation he had had with Lovat, made the
amusingly illogical remark, ‘As I did not expect to be called as a
witness, so I do not remember what passed on that occasion.’ The
lieutenant did, however, recollect one thing, namely, that Lovat had
said that his son had gone into the rebellion, but that he himself was
a very loyal person. A second officer, Sir Everard Falconer, secretary
to the Duke of Cumberland (and very recently married to Miss
Churchill, daughter of the old general), stated that he had been sent
by the duke to converse with Lovat, and he repeated the loyal
assertions that the prisoner had made. ‘Will your Lordship put any
question to Sir Everard?’ asked the Lord High Steward, of Lovat. ‘I
have only,’ replied Lovat, ‘to wish him joy of his young wife.’
 The most important witness of all was, of course,
MURRAY OF
Mr. Murray, of Boughton, late secretary to the young BOUGHTON.
Chevalier, and, only a day or two before, a prisoner in
the King’s Bench, from which he had been discharged. In the course
of his answers, Murray said he had been ‘directed’ to give a narrative
of the springs and progress of the late rebellion,—when he came to
be examined at the Bar of the High Court of Justice, where he was
then standing. ‘Directed?’ exclaimed the Earl of Cholmondely, ‘who
directed you?’ The Lord High Steward and the Earl of Chesterfield
protested they had not heard the word ‘directed’ used by the witness.
There was a wish to have the matter cleared up, and Murray then
said, ‘Some days after my examination in the Tower, by the
honourable Committee of the House of Commons, a gentleman,
who, I believe was their secretary, came to me to take a further
examination; and to ask me as to any other matter that had occurred
since my last examination. Some days after that, he told me I should
be called here before your Lordships, upon the trial of my Lord
Lovat, and that at the same time, it would be expected that I should
give an account of the rise and progress of the Rebellion in general.’
The above shows pretty clearly how the weak MURRAY’S
natures of prisoners in the Tower were dealt with, in EVIDENCE.
order to get evidence by which they would destroy at
once the life of a confederate and their own honour. Murray did what
he was ‘directed’ or ‘expected’ to do, without passion but with some
sense of pain and shame. The whole rise and course of the
insurrection may be found in his testimony; he was prepared for the
questions, equally so with the answers he gave to them; and his
evidence is of importance for a proper understanding of the
outbreak. Some merit was made of his ‘voluntary surrender,’ but
Lord Talbot, quite in Lovat’s interest, roughly asked if Murray had
really intended to surrender himself at the time he became a prisoner
to the Royal forces. The poor man truthfully answered that ‘it was not
then my intention particularly to surrender myself’;—adding, ‘it was
not my intention till I saw the dragoons;’—but that he had never
since attempted to escape.—‘Have you ever taken the Oaths of
Allegiance and Fidelity to the King?’ asked Lord Talbot. He never
had. ‘Did you ever take such Oaths to anybody else?’ Murray let
drop a murmured ‘No’; and then Sir William Yonge,
CROSS
one of the Managers for the Commons, came to his EXAMINATION.
help, with the expression of a hope that the king’s
witness should not be obliged to answer questions that tended to
accuse himself of High Treason. To which Lord Talbot replied that the
gentleman had already confessed himself guilty of that crime. Lord
Talbot then asked Murray if he was a voluntary evidence. Murray
requested him to explain what he meant by those two words. ‘Are
you here?’ said Talbot, ‘in hopes of a pardon? And if you had been
pardoned, would you now be here as a witness at all?’ The Attorney-
General came to the rescue. It was an improper question, he said,
resting upon the supposition of a fact which had not happened. Lord
Talbot insisted: he asked Murray, ‘Do you believe your life depends
upon the conformity of the evidence you shall give on this trial, with
former examinations which you have undergone?’ There was a fight
over this matter, but a lull came in the fray, and then Murray spoke
with a certain dignity, and said: ‘I am upon my oath and obliged to tell
the truth; and I say that possibly and very probably, had I been in
another situation of life, I should not have appeared before your
Lordships as a witness against the noble Lord at the Bar.’ There was
a touch of mournful sarcasm in Murray’s truthful answer, which
escaped Lord Talbot, for he remarked: ‘I am extremely well satisfied
with the gentleman’s answer; and it gives me a much better opinion
of his evidence than I had before.’
The conclusion of the protracted affair was that
THE VERDICT.
Lovat was pronounced guilty by the unanimous
verdict of 117 peers. He made no defence by which he could profit;
and when he spoke in arrest of judgment, he said little to the
purpose. There was a sorry sort of humour in one or two of his
remarks. He had suffered in this trial by two Murrays, he said, by the
bitter evidence of one, and the fatal eloquence of another, by which
he was hurried into eternity. Nevertheless, though the eloquence had
been employed against him, he had listened to it with pleasure. ‘I
had great need of my friend Murray’s eloquence for half an hour,
myself; then, it would have been altogether agreeable to me!’ In
whatever he himself had done, there was, he said, really no
malicious intention. If he had not been ill-used by the Government in
London, there would have been no rebellion in the Frasers’ country.
George I. had been his ‘dear master;’ for George II. he had the
greatest respect. He hoped the Lords would intercede to procure for
him the royal mercy. The Commons had been severe against him, let
them now be merciful. Nothing of this availed Lovat. The peevish
Lord Hardwicke called him to order; and then, with a calm
satisfaction, pronounced the horrible sentence which told a traitor
how he should die. Lovat put a good face on this bad matter.—‘God
bless you all!’ he said, ‘I bid you an everlasting farewell.’ And then,
with a grim humour, he remarked:—‘We shall not meet all in the
same place again, I am quite sure of that!’ He afterwards desired, if
he must die, that it should be in the old style of the Scottish nobility,
—by the Maiden.
While this tragic drama was in progress, there
GENTLEMAN
arose a report in the coffee-houses of a Jacobite plot. HARRY.
It came in this way. At the March sessions of the Old
Bailey, a young highwayman, named Henry Simms, was the only
offender who was capitally convicted. ‘If it hadn’t been for me,’ said
the handsome highwayman, ‘you would have had a kind of maiden
assize; so, you might as well let me go!’ As the judges differed from
him, he pointed to some dear friends in the body of the court, and
remarked, ‘Here are half a dozen of gentlemen who deserve hanging
quite as much as I do.’ The Bench did not doubt it, but the remark
did not profit Gentleman Harry, himself, as the young women and
aspiring boys on the suburban roads called him. But Mr. Simms was
a man of resources. As he sat over his punch in Newgate, he
bethought himself of a means of escape. He knew, he said, of a
hellish Jacobite plot to murder the king and upset the Happy
Establishment. Grave ministers went down to Newgate and listened
to information which was directed against several eminent persons.
Harry, however, lacked the genius of Titus Oates; and besides, the
people in power were not in want of a plot; the information would not
‘hold water.’ The usual countless mob of savages saw him ‘go off’ at
Tyburn; and then eagerly looked forward to the expected grander
display on Tower Hill. But Lovat and his friends spared no pains to
postpone that display altogether.
 The Scots made a national question of it. The Duke of Argyle
especially exerted himself to get the sentence commuted for one of
perpetual imprisonment. This was accounted for by Mr. Harris
(Malmesbury Correspondence), in the following manner: ‘The Duke
owes Lord Lovat a good turn for letting the world know how active
his Grace was in serving the Government in 1715, and for some
panegyric which the Duke is not a little pleased with.’
In the Tower, Lovat mingled seriousness and buffoonery together.
But this was natural to him. There was no excitement about him, nor
affectation. He naturally talked much about himself; but he had
leisure and self-possession to converse with his visitors on other
topics besides himself. Only two or three days before his execution
he was talking with two Scottish landed proprietors. The subject was
the Jurisdiction Bill. ‘You ought to be against the Bill,’ said Lovat; ‘the
increase of your estates by that Bill will not give you such an interest
at Court as the power did which you are thereby to be deprived of.’
The interest of his own friends at Court was gone.
On April the 2nd, the Sheriffs of London received THE DEATH
the ‘death warrant’ from the Duke of Newcastle for WARRANT.
Lovat’s execution. At the same time, a verbal
message was sent expressing the duke’s expectation that the
decapitated head should be held up, and denounced as that of a
traitor, at the four corners of the scaffold.
On the 9th, the hour had come and the old man EXECUTION.
was there to meet it. It is due to him to say that he
died like a man, therein exemplifying a remark made by Sir Dudley
Carleton, on a similar occurrence, ‘So much easier is it for a man to
die well than to live well.’ Lovat was very long over his toilet, from
infirm habit, and he complained of the pain and trouble it gave him to
hobble down the steps from his room, in order to have his head
struck off his shoulders. On the scaffold, he gazed round him and
wondered at the thousands who had assembled to see such a
melancholy sight. He quoted Latin lines, as if they illustrated a
patriotism or virtue which he had never possessed or practised. He
would have touched the edge of the axe, but the headsman would
not consent till the Sheriffs gave their sanction. With, or apart from all
this, ‘he died,’ says Walpole, ‘without passion, affectation,
buffoonery, or timidity. His behaviour was natural and intrepid.’
Walpole adds, ‘He professed himself a Jansenist.’ Other accounts
say, ‘a Papist,’ which is a Jansenist and something more. ‘He made
no speech; but sat down a little while in a chair on the scaffold, and
talked to the people round him. He said, he was glad to suffer for his
country, dulce est pro patriâ mori; that he did not know how, but that
he had always loved it, Nescio quâ natale solum, &c.; that he had
never swerved from his principles, (!) and that this was the character
of his family who had been gentlemen for 500 years! He lay down
quietly, gave the sign soon, and was despatched at a blow. I believe
it will strike some terror into the Highlands, when they hear there is
any power great enough to bring so potent a tyrant to the block. A
scaffold fell down and killed several persons; one, a man that had
ridden post from Salisbury the day before to see the ceremony; and
a woman was taken up dead with a live child in her arms.’ This
scaffold consisted of several tiers which were occupied by at least a
thousand spectators. It was built out from the Ship, at the corner of
Barking alley. About a dozen people were killed at the first crash,
which also wounded many who died in hospital. The master-
carpenter who erected it, had so little thought of its instability, that he
established a bar and tap beneath it. He was joyously serving out
liquors to as joyous customers, when down came the fabric and
overwhelmed them all. The carpenter was among the killed.
The head was not held up nor its late owner GEORGE
denounced as a traitor. The Duke of Newcastle was SELWYN.
displeased at the omission, but the Sheriffs justified
themselves on the ground that the custom had not been observed at
the execution of Lord Balmerino, and that the duke had not
authorised them to act, in writing. A sample of the levity of the time is
furnished in the accounts of the crowds that flocked to the trial as
they might have done to some gay spectacle; and an example of its
callousness may be found in what Walpole calls, ‘an excessive good
story of George Selwyn.’ ‘Some women were scolding him for going
to see the execution, and asked him how he could be such a
barbarian to see the head cut off?’ “Nay,” says he, “if that be such a
crime, I am sure I have made amends, for I went to see it sewed on
again!” When he was at the undertaker’s, Stephenson’s in the
Strand, as soon as they had stitched him together, and were going to
put the body into the coffin, George, in my Lord Chancellor’s voice,
said, “My Lord Lovat, your Lordship may rise.”’
Lovat had expressed a passionate desire to be
LOVAT’S
buried in his native country, under the shadow of its BODY.
hills, his clansmen paying the last duty to their chief,
and the women of the tribe keening their death-song on the way to
the grave. The Duke of Newcastle consented. The evening before
the day appointed for leaving the Tower, a coachman drove a hearse
about the court of the prison, ‘before my Lord Traquair’s dungeon,’
says Walpole, ‘which could be no agreeable sight, it might to Lord
Cromartie, who is above the chair.’ Walpole treats Lord Traquair with
the most scathing contempt, as if he were both coward and traitor,
ready to purchase life at any cost. After all, Lovat’s body never left
the Tower. ‘The Duke of Newcastle,’ writes Walpole to Conway, 16th
April, on which night London was all sky-rockets and bonfires for last
year’s victory, ‘has burst ten yards of breeches-strings, about the
body, which was to be sent into Scotland; but it seems it is
customary for vast numbers to rise, to attend the most trivial burial.
The Duke, who is always at least as much frightened at doing right
as at doing wrong, was three days before he got courage enough to
order the burying in the Tower.’
Lovat’s trial brought about a change in the law. On the 5th of May,
Sir William Yonge, in the House of Commons, brought in a good-
natured Bill, without opposition, ‘to allow council to prisoners on
impeachment for treason, as they have on indictments. It hurt
everybody at old Lovat’s trial, all guilty as he was, to see an old
wretch worried by the first lawyers in England, without any
assistance, but his own unpractised defence. This was a point
struggled for in King William’s reign, as a privilege and dignity
inherent in the Commons—that the accused by them should have no
assistance of council. How reasonable that men chosen by their
fellow-subjects for the defence of their fellow-subjects should have
rights detrimental to the good of the people whom they are to
protect. Thank God! we are a better-natured age, and have
relinquished this savage principle with a good grace.’ So wrote
Walpole in Arlington Street.
After Lovat’s death, the friends of the Happy Establishment
ceased to have fears for the stability of the happiness or for that of
the establishment. Walpole declined thenceforth to entertain any
idea of Pretender, young or old, unless either of them got south of
Derby. When Charles Edward ‘could not get to London with all the
advantages which the ministry had smoothed for him, how could he
ever meet more concurring circumstances?’ Meanwhile, the ‘Duke’s
Head,’ as a sign, had taken place of Admiral Vernon’s in and about
the metropolis, as Vernon’s had of the illustrious Jacobite’s—the
Duke of Ormond.
There was in Piccadilly an inn, whose loyal host, THE WHITE
Williams, had set up the then very loyal sign of ‘The HORSE,
White Horse’ (of Hanover). While Lovat’s trial was PICCADILLY.
proceeding, that Whig Boniface had reason to know
that the Jacobites were not so thoroughly stamped out as they
seemed to be. Williams attended an anniversary dinner of the
Electors of Westminster, who supported ‘the good old cause.’ He
was observed to be taking notes of the toasts and speeches, and he
was severely beaten and ejected. He laid an information against this
Jacobite gathering, and he described one of the treasonable
practices thus:—‘On the King’s health being drunk, every man held a
glass of water in his left hand, and waved a glass of wine over it with
the right.’ A Committee of the House of Commons made so foolish
an affair of it as to be unable to draw up a ‘Report.’ If the enquiry had
extended three years back, Walpole thinks, ‘Lords Sandwich and
Grenville of the Admiralty would have made an admirable figure as
dictators of some of the most Jacobite toasts that ever were
invented. Lord Donerail ... plagued Lyttelton to death with pressing
him to enquire into the healths of the year ’43.’
On the first anniversary of Culloden, the JACOBITE
celebration of the day was as universally joyous as TOASTS.
when the news of the victory first reached town. The
papers speak of a ‘numerous and splendid appearance of nobility,’ at
St. James’s; of foreign ministers and native gentry, eager to pay their
compliments to his Majesty on this occasion. At night, London was in
a blaze of bonfires and illuminations. At the same time, in houses
where Jacobites met, they drank the very enigmatical toast, ‘The
three W’s,’ and talked of a private manifesto of the Chevalier to his
faithful supporters, which stated that the late attempt was an essay,
which would be followed in due time by an expedition made with an
irresistible force. But there were also Jacobites who ‘mourned
Fifteen renewed in Forty-five,’ and whose sentiments were
subsequently expressed by Churchill’s Jockey in the ‘Prophecy of
Famine’:—
Full sorely may we all lament that day,
For all were losers in the deadly fray.
Five brothers had I on the Scottish plains,
Well do’st thou know were none more hopeful swains:
Five brothers there I lost in manhood’s pride;
Two in the field, and three on gibbets died.
Ah! silly swains to follow war’s alarms;
Ah, what hath shepherd life to do with arms?
There was still an untried rebel peer in the Tower, THE EARL OF
the Earl of Traquair. He bore the royal name of TRAQUAIR.
Charles Stuart, and had some drops of the Stuart blood in his veins.
Captured in 1746, he had seen the arrival of Lovat at, and also his
departure from, the Tower. Soon after the latter event, there was
some talk of impeaching the earl; but this was held to be idle talk
when the earl was seen enjoying the liberty of the Tower—walking in
one of the courts with his friends. Whether he had rendered any
service to Government, to be deserving of this favour and
subsequent immunity, is not known. Walpole, when Lovat’s trial was
going on, said, ‘It is much expected that Lord Traquair, who is a great
coward, will give ample information of the whole plot.’ However, it is
certain that many Jacobites were pardoned without any such
baseness being exacted from them. Sir Hector Maclean and half-a-
dozen other semi-liberated rebels were to be seen going about
London, with a messenger attending on them. Other messengers,
however, were often sudden and unwelcome visitors in private
houses, in search for treasonable papers and traitorous persons.
Gentleman Harry’s idea of a plot was said, in loyal coffee-houses, to
be a reality; and the quidnuncs there were quite sure that money
was going into the Highlands from France, and small bodies of
Frenchmen were also being sent thither, and capable Scottish and
English sergeants were now and then disappearing. The only
ostensible steps taken by the Government was to make a new army-
regulation, namely, that the 3rd (Scottish) regiment of Foot Guards,
and all other regiments, bearing the name Scottish, should
henceforward be called English, and ‘the drums to beat none but
English marches.’
Therewith came a doubtful sort of pardoning to PLOTTING
about a thousand rebels cooped up in vessels on the AND
Thames, or in prisons ashore. They, and some PARDONING.
Southwark prisoners who had been condemned to
death, were compelled to suffer transportation to the American
Plantations. ‘They will be transported for life,’ the papers tell their
readers, ‘let them be of what quality and condition soever.’
There was one Jacobite prisoner in Newgate who ÆNEAS
was disinclined to live in durance, to take his trial, or MACDONALD.
to be hanged after it or transported without it. This
was Æneas or Angus Macdonald, known as the Pretender’s Banker.
He had surrendered soon after Culloden, and was lodged in
Newgate. Seeing the death-like aspect of things, Macdonald got two
friends to call upon him, one evening. There was nothing strange in
such a visit. Newgate was like a huge hotel, open at all hours, where
turnkeys acted as footmen who introduced visitors. Young Mr.
Ackerman, the keeper’s son, received Mr. Macdonald’s friends. As
soon as he had opened the wicket, behind which the prisoner was
standing, they knocked Ackerman down, and as he was attempting
to rise, they flung handfuls of snuff into his face. He succeeded in
getting on his legs, but, when he could open his eyes, the captive
and his friends had disappeared. Alarm was given; young Ackerman
led the pursuit, and he came up with Macdonald in an adjacent
street. Æneas faced his pursuer as if to quietly surrender, but as
soon as Ackerman came near, he flung a cloud of snuff into his face.
The gaoler struck him down with his keys and broke his collarbone.
When Macdonald was again within the prison walls, he politely
apologised for the trouble he had given. Mr. Ackerman quite as
politely begged him not to think of it, ‘but, you see, Sir,’ he added, ‘I
am bound to take care it does not happen again,’ and clapping a
heavy suit of irons on the prisoner’s limbs, he stapled and screwed
the banker down to the floor, sending the surgeon to him to look to
his collarbone.
The banker’s trial was put off from time to time, THE
between July and December. The public in general COUNTESS
were beginning to doubt its ever coming on at all; and OF
the autumn seemed dull to people now long used to DERWENTWAT
ER.
excitement, when London suddenly heard that
Charles Radcliffe’s widow, with a son and two daughters, had arrived
in London, and had taken a mansion in, then highly fashionable,
Golden Square. She was a Countess (of Newburgh), in her own
right; but, of course, the gentry with Jacobite sympathies, who called
on her, recognised her as Countess of Derwentwater. This arrival in
Golden Square may have had some influence on a demonstration at
Westminster Abbey. For years, on the anniversary of that rather un-
English king and canonized saint, Edward the Confessor, groups of
Roman Catholics were accustomed to gather round his shrine,
kneeling in prayer. ‘Last Tuesday,’ says the ‘Penny Post,’ ‘being the
anniversary of Edward the Confessor, the tombs were shut in
Westminster Abbey, by order of the Dean and Chapter, to prevent
the great concourse of Roman Catholics, who always repair there on
that day. Notwithstanding which, most of them were kneeling all the
day at the gates, paying their devotions to that Saint.’
This incident having passed out of discussion, the trial of
Macdonald was looked for. When it did come on, in December, at St.
Margaret’s, Southwark, it disappointed the amateurs of executions,
and delighted the Jacobites. The prisoner’s main plea was that he
was French, and was legally at Culloden. The jury found that he was
not French, but was a Scotch rebel. He was sentenced to death; but
the whole thing was a solemn farce, the sentence was not carried
out; and we shall presently see wherefore he was immediately