Deducing the solution of the von Neumann equation

xyver
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


\hat{\rho}(t)=? <br /> |\psi(t)\rangle=U(t,t_{0})|\psi(t_{0})\rangle <br /> \imath\hbar\partial_{t}\hat{p}=[\hat{H},\hat{\rho}] <br />

Homework Equations


<br /> \imath\hbar\partial_{t}\hat{p}=[\hat{H},\hat{\rho}] \Leftrightarrow\imath\hbar\partial_{t}\hat{p}=\hat{H}\hat{\rho}-\hat{\rho}\hat{H}<br />

The Attempt at a Solution



I already know the solution: \hat{\rho}(t)=\hat{U}\hat{\rho}(0)\hat{U}^{+}
But where do I get this from? How do I know that I have to write the time evolution operator multiplied once in front of the density operator and once the Hermitian conjugate after it?

Also, I tried to verify the solution:
\Rightarrow\imath\hbar\partial_{t}\hat{U}\hat{\rho}(0)\hat{U}^{+}=\hat{H}\hat{U}\hat{\rho}(0)\hat{U}^{+}-\hat{U}\hat{\rho}(0)\hat{U}^{+}\hat{H}=[H,\hat{\rho}(t)]
Can't I take any other operator instead of the time evolution operator at this place, since in my attempt to verify the solution the \hat{U} goes away again?

Or is this just guessing as one way to solve a differential equation. Then, still, how do you get the idea?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why don't you use the definition of the von Neumann density operator ?
 
The definition should be \hat{\rho}=\sum_{i}p_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\langle\psi(t)|
I can do with that:
\partial_{t}\hat{\rho}=\partial_{t}\sum_{i}p_{n}| \psi(t)\rangle\langle\psi(t)|+ \sum_{i} p_{n}|\psi(t) \rangle\partial_{t}\langle\psi(t)| \Leftrightarrow<br /> <br /> \partial_{t}\hat{\rho}=\frac{1}{\imath\hbar}Hp_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\langle\psi(t)|+\sum_{i}p_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\frac{1}{\imath\hbar}H\langle\psi(t)| \Leftrightarrow<br /> \partial_{t}\hat{\rho}=\frac{1}{\imath\hbar}\hat{H}p_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\langle\psi(t)|+\frac{1}{ \imath\hbar}\sum_{i}p_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\langle \psi(t)\hat{H}|
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top