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

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
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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

Similar threads

Back
Top