Dirac's Quantum Mechanics - the definition of the time evolution operator

Loro
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Dirac's "Quantum Mechanics" - the definition of the time evolution operator

I'm reading Dirac's "Principles Of Quantum Mechanics" to learn more about the formal side of the subject.

I have a question about the way he defines the time evolution operator in the book. Either there's a mistake or I'm missing something.

In chapter 27 he says (eqn 1) that \hat{T} is defined such that:

|P(t)> = \hat{T} |P(0)>

Where |P(0)> is a ket at time t=0 , and |P(t)> - at time t
Or equivalently |P(0)> is a ket in the Heisenberg picture, and |P(t)> - in the Schrodinger picture.

So this implies that:

<P(t)| = <P(0)| \hat{T}^{\dagger}

And then in chapter 32, eqn 45 implies that:

<P(t)| = <P(0)| \hat{T}

And I understand, that we can define it both ways, since it's a unitary operator. But we should stick to one way of defining it, and I'm sure Dirac does. So what it is here, that I'm not understanding properly?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Loro said:
So what it is here, that I'm not understanding properly?
I think this is essentially the same misunderstanding about selfadjoint operators which I clarified in your other thread.
 


Thanks again,

But here \hat{T} isn't self-adjoint. In fact it's unitary.
 


Yes, the T's are not identical, one is the adjoint of the other.
 


Thanks,

Yes. I'm sorry, but I still don't understand how this connects to my question.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top