Differentiation of an exponential with operators (Peskin p.84)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiation of an exponential function that contains operators in its exponent, specifically in the context of quantum field theory as presented in Peskin's textbook. Participants explore the implications of non-commuting operators and the appropriate methods for differentiation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in differentiating an exponential with operators, referencing specific formulas from Peskin's QFT.
  • Another participant points out that the expression U(t, t0) cannot be simplified to e^{i(H0 - H)(t - t0)} due to the non-commutativity of H and H0, suggesting the use of the Campbell-Hausdorff formula instead.
  • There is a discussion about the proper handling of operators during differentiation, emphasizing that operators should not be passed through non-commuting operators.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the clarification provided by another, indicating that the discussion has been beneficial.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the differentiation approach, as there are differing views on how to handle non-commuting operators and the implications for the differentiation process.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of their approaches, particularly concerning the non-commutativity of operators and the need for specific mathematical rules when differentiating exponentials involving operators.

gremezd
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know how to differentiate an exponential, which has an operator in its power? I found it quite a trouble in Peskin's QFT (page 84, formulas (4.17), (4.18)).
Here we have these two formulas of Peskin:

U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) }e^{-iH\left( t-t_{0}\right) };
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) }\left( H-H_{0}\right) e^{-iH\left( t-t_{0}\right) }.

I agree with this. However, if we write U\left( t,t_{0}\right) as U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{i\left( H_{0}-H\right) \left( t-t_{0}\right) }, then

i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=\left( H-H_{0}\right)e^{i\left( H_{0}-H\right) \left( t-t_{0}\right) }

and we cannot transport e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) } to the left of \left( H-H_{0}\right) so easily to obtain Peskin's result, since, according to my calculations, \left[ H,H_{0}\right]\neq0. Do we have a rule, which explains where to put the operators from the exponential after differentiation, when we have several noncummuting operators in the power of exponential?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gremezd said:
Does anyone know how to differentiate an exponential, which has an operator in its power? I found it quite a trouble in Peskin's QFT (page 84, formulas (4.17), (4.18)).
Here we have these two formulas of Peskin:

U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) }e^{-iH\left( t-t_{0}\right) };
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) }\left( H-H_{0}\right) e^{-iH\left( t-t_{0}\right) }.

I agree with this. However, if we write U\left( t,t_{0}\right) as U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{i\left( H_{0}-H\right) \left( t-t_{0}\right) }, then
But you can't write this since H and H_0 don't commute. e^A e^B = e^{A+B} only when A and B commute. Otherwise you have to use the Campbell-Hausdorf formula.
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=\left( H-H_{0}\right)e^{i\left( H_{0}-H\right) \left( t-t_{0}\right) }

and we cannot transport e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) } to the left of \left( H-H_{0}\right) so easily to obtain Peskin's result, since, according to my calculations, \left[ H,H_{0}\right]\neq0. Do we have a rule, which explains where to put the operators from the exponential after differentiation, when we have several noncummuting operators in the power of exponential?
You just differentiate as usual, making sure that you never pass an operator "through" another operator that does not commute with it.
 
Thanks a lot! This has been tormenting me for ages!
 
Thank you, nrqed, for pointing out my mistake. I appreciate it :)
 
gremezd said:
Thank you, nrqed, for pointing out my mistake. I appreciate it :)

:smile: You are very very welcome.

And thank you for posting your question since this apparently helped Wasia too!

Patrick
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K