Differentiation of unitary operator U(t,t') in Peskin and Schroeder

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiation of the unitary operator \( U(t,t') \) as presented in Peskin and Schroeder, specifically focusing on the derivation of equation (4.25) from equation (4.24). The scope includes theoretical aspects of quantum mechanics and the interaction picture of Hamiltonians.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the authors derived the expression for \( U(t,t') \) given in equation (4.25).
  • Another participant suggests verifying the correctness of the expression by plugging it into equation (4.24), highlighting the non-commutativity of \( H_0 \) and \( H \).
  • A different participant provides a detailed derivation using equation (4.18) to express \( H_I(t) \) and substituting it into equation (4.24), leading to a conclusion about the relationship between \( U(t,t') \) and \( U(t,t_0) \).
  • Some participants note the age of the thread, indicating that it has been active for five years, but they still find it relevant for those seeking to understand the derivation of (4.25).
  • One participant raises a concern regarding the time dependence of \( H \) and its implications for the differentiation process, suggesting that complications may arise if \( H \) is not independent of time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the derivation process and the implications of time dependence in the Hamiltonian. There is no consensus on the correctness of the approaches or the assumptions made regarding \( H \).

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the assumptions regarding the time dependence of \( H \) and how it affects the differentiation of the unitary operator. The discussion does not clarify whether \( H \) is indeed independent of time.

Romanopoulos Stelios
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
How the authors came to the conclusion (eq. 4.25) that
$$ U(t,t')=e^{iH_0(t-t_0)} e^{-iH(t-t')} e^{-iH_0(t'-t_0)} $$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can plug the expression into equation 4.24 to verify it's correct. The left side is (taking into account the non-commutativity of ##H_0## and ##H##):
$$i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U(t,t')=i\left[e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}(iH_0)e^{-iH(t-t')}e^{-iH_0(t'-t_0)}+e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}(-iH)e^{-iH(t-t')}e^{-iH_0(t'-t_0)}\right]=\underbrace{e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}(H-H_0)e^{-iH_0(t-t_0)}}_{H_I(t)}\underbrace{e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}e^{-iH(t-t')}e^{-iH_0(t'-t_0)}}_{U(t,t')}$$
this is nothing but the right hand side of 4.25. In the second line I've used ##1=e^{-iH_0(t-t_0)}e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}##, ##H_{int}=H-H_0## and the definition of the interaction picture Hamiltonian.
 
You may not see this answer, but as an individual memo, I answer your question.

From eq. (4.18), you can get
$$ H_I(t) = \left( i \frac {\partial} {\partial t} U(t,t_0) \right) U^\dagger(t,t_0). $$
Then, substitute this eq. for the right-hand side of eq. (4.24).
If you do so,
\begin{align*}
& (\text{right-hand side of (4.24)}) \\
& = H_I(t)U(t,t') \\
& = \left( i \frac {\partial} {\partial t} U(t,t_0) \right) U^\dagger(t,t_0) U(t,t') \\
& = i \frac {\partial} {\partial t} \left( U(t,t_0)U^\dagger(t,t_0)U(t,t') \right)
- U(t,t_0) i \frac {\partial} {\partial t} \left( U^\dagger(t,t_0)U(t,t') \right).
\end{align*}
Since ##U(t,t_0)U^\dagger(t,t_0)=1##, if you substitute this for (4.24) you get
$$ \frac {\partial} {\partial t} \left( U^\dagger(t,t_0)U(t,t') \right) = 0. $$
From this,
$$ U^\dagger(t,t_0)U(t,t') = C(t') ~~~~ (C(t')\text{ is an arbitrary function of }t'). $$
Now, since ##U(t,t')=1## for ##t=t'##, ##C(t') = U^\dagger(t',t_0)##.
Therefore,
$$ U(t,t') = U(t,t_0)C(t') = U(t,t_0)U^\dagger(t',t_0) = e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}e^{-iH(t-t')}e^{-iH_0(t'-t_0)}. $$

That's all.
 
Last edited:
jpman19t10 said:
You may not see this answer, but as an individual memo, I answer your question.
:welcome:

Note that this thread is five years old!
 
PeroK said:
:welcome:

Note that this thread is five years old!
Yeah, I know (ゝω・)

This is for the people who couldn't find how to derive (4.25) from (4.24).

thx!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
kontejnjer said:
You can plug the expression into equation 4.24 to verify it's correct. The left side is (taking into account the non-commutativity of ##H_0## and ##H##):
$$i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U(t,t')=i\left[e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}(iH_0)e^{-iH(t-t')}e^{-iH_0(t'-t_0)}+e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}(-iH)e^{-iH(t-t')}e^{-iH_0(t'-t_0)}\right]=\underbrace{e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}(H-H_0)e^{-iH_0(t-t_0)}}_{H_I(t)}\underbrace{e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}e^{-iH(t-t')}e^{-iH_0(t'-t_0)}}_{U(t,t')}$$
this is nothing but the right hand side of 4.25. In the second line I've used ##1=e^{-iH_0(t-t_0)}e^{iH_0(t-t_0)}##, ##H_{int}=H-H_0## and the definition of the interaction picture Hamiltonian.
The problem will occur if ##H## is dependent on time. We must perform derivative ##H## in the component ##\exp\left[-iH(t-t_0)\right]##
$$ i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\exp\left[-iH(t-t_0)\right] = \frac{\partial H}{\partial t}(t-t_0)\exp\left[-iH(t-t_0)\right]+H\exp\left[-iH(t-t_0)\right] $$
And do we ensure that ##H## is independent on time?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K