Angular momentum and Hamiltonian commutator

blagershod.smee
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Is it generally the case that [J, H] = dJ/dt?

I saw this appear in a problem involving a spin 1/2 system interacting with a magnetic field.

If so, why?This seems like a very basic relation but I'm having a bit of brain freeze and can't see the answer right now.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can just work out the commutator yourself by decomposing J and H into component operators. It won't work if J is spin, but you can try it for L.
 
blagershod.smee said:
Hello,

Is it generally the case that [J, H] = dJ/dt?

I saw this appear in a problem involving a spin 1/2 system interacting with a magnetic field.

If so, why?This seems like a very basic relation but I'm having a bit of brain freeze and can't see the answer right now.

This is just the equation of motion of an operator in the Heisenberg picture, isn't it?
 
jensa said:
This is just the equation of motion of an operator in the Heisenberg picture, isn't it?

Okay, so in the Heisenberg scheme I can say that for any operator O, [O, H] = dO/dt?

Is this a postulate or derived from something else?
 
blagershod.smee said:
Okay, so in the Heisenberg scheme I can say that for any operator O, [O, H] = dO/dt?

Is this a postulate or derived from something else?

It's a dynamical equation which is equivalent to the Schrödinger equation. In the Schrödinger picture the states change with time, in the Heisenberg picture the operators change with time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_picture
 
jensa said:
It's a dynamical equation which is equivalent to the Schrödinger equation. In the Schrödinger picture the states change with time, in the Heisenberg picture the operators change with time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_picture

Thanks for the link. I think my confusion arose because I'm used to thinking of the Hamiltonian in terms of the Schrodinger picture and have not gotten used to the Heisenberg formulation.
 
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