Atom-photon interactions in the interaction picture (self answered)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interactions between atoms and photons within the framework of quantum mechanics, specifically using the interaction picture. Participants engage with a problem from a quantum physics assignment, exploring matrix multiplication and the properties of Hamiltonians.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Homework-related
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over a matrix multiplication error, initially believing the result to be zero, and seeks clarification on their mistake.
  • Another participant questions the process of "pulling through" the diagonal matrix ##\sigma_z## in the context of taking its exponential.
  • A response clarifies that since ##\sigma_z## is diagonal, its exponential can be computed by taking the exponential of its diagonal elements.
  • A later reply suggests a deeper approach to understanding the problem by rewriting the Hamiltonian in terms of Pauli matrices, indicating a potential geometric interpretation of the interaction picture result.
  • Participants acknowledge the learning process through error recognition and encourage each other in their understanding of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the technical aspects of matrix operations and the properties of the Hamiltonian, but there are varying levels of understanding and interpretation regarding the application of these concepts to the problem at hand.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the properties of matrices and their exponentials, as well as the specific context of the problem from the assignment. Some mathematical steps and definitions remain unresolved.

KDPhysics
Messages
73
Reaction score
24
TL;DR
How do we evaluate the exponential of a hamiltonian involving tensor products? Why do i get a zero result?
EDIT: I'M SO DUMB! I can't believe I can't multiply matrices together. Of course the result is not zero, the matrix on the left will be:
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & e^{i\omega_at/2}\\
e^{-i\omega_at/2}&0
\end{pmatrix}
$$

So i was solving problem 3 from https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics...iii-spring-2018/assignments/MIT8_06S18ps5.pdf

Here is my working (i used properties 3 and 8 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronecker_product to simplify the exponential of a tensor product):

CamScanner 05-20-2021 17.19.45_1.jpg

Clearly 0 does not make sense, but I don't understand where I could have made a mistake? It seems like from the way the perturbation is defined as having off-diagonal elements, there is no way multiplying it by the exponential of the unperturbed hamiltonian, which is diagonal, will yield a non-zero result.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Kolmo, vanhees71 and Twigg
Physics news on Phys.org
Also how does ##\sigma_z## get pulled through the exponential?
 
What do you mean by pulled through?
 
The ##\sigma_z## is a diagonal matrix so to take its exponential we can simply take the exponential of the diagonal elements.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and hutchphd
Nice job spotting that! And don't beat yourself up over making this kind of error. It happens! I've definitely posted self-answered threads before :oldbiggrin:

I think the way you're doing is the way the problem intended you to do this. If you wanted to get fancy and see a little deeper into the physics of this process, I encourage you to rewrite the atomic part of the 0th and 1st order parts of the Hamiltonian as a vector dotted with the standard pauli matrix vector, if that makes sense (##H = H_x \sigma_x + H_y \sigma_y + H_z \sigma_z##). The interaction picture result ##\delta \tilde{H}## will have a clear geometric interpretation that way.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and KDPhysics
Well, we learn most by recognizing our errors! Great job!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier and KDPhysics
that's the way I justify it XD
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
6K