1-D simple harmonic oscillator

indigojoker
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
I was just wondering what the difference was in the 1-D simple harmonic oscillator in the Heisenberg picture versus the Schrodinger picture?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is generally the difference b/w the Heisenberg and the Schrödinger pictures ?
 
dextercioby, please correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding of the two pictures (involving time):

In the Schrodinger picture, the time evolution operator operates on the state vector and the dynamic variabs x and p do not change. So:

x->x
p->p
|a> -> U|a>

However, in the Heisenberg picture, the dynamic variables x and p changes, while the state vector stays the same:

let *=dagger

x(t)->U*xU
p(t)->U*pU
|a> -> |a>

i guess I'm confused as to how this related to the SHO?
 
The difference is if we tag the time dependence onto the states or onto the operators.
In one picture (Schrödinger) the operators are not time-dependent, and the states generally are. In the Heisenberg picture it's the other way around.
Of course, they're completely equivalent (when you calculate the physically relevant quantities like expectation values etc. you get the same answer in both), it's just that sometimes one is more efficient than the other.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top