Dirac's Quantum Mechanics - the definition of the time evolution operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of the time evolution operator in Dirac's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics." Participants are examining the implications of Dirac's definitions and whether there is a misunderstanding regarding the operator's properties and its representation in different pictures of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the consistency of Dirac's definition of the time evolution operator, noting a potential contradiction between different equations presented in the text.
  • Another participant suggests that the confusion may stem from a misunderstanding of self-adjoint operators, referencing a previous discussion.
  • A different participant clarifies that the time evolution operator is unitary, not self-adjoint, which may be relevant to the confusion.
  • It is noted that the time evolution operators mentioned are not identical, as one is the adjoint of the other.
  • The original poster expresses continued confusion about how these points relate to their initial question.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not seem to reach a consensus on the interpretation of Dirac's definitions or the properties of the time evolution operator, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

There is an unresolved discussion about the definitions and properties of the time evolution operator, particularly regarding its unitary nature and the implications of self-adjointness in the context of quantum mechanics.

Loro
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Dirac's "Quantum Mechanics" - the definition of the time evolution operator

I'm reading Dirac's "Principles Of Quantum Mechanics" to learn more about the formal side of the subject.

I have a question about the way he defines the time evolution operator in the book. Either there's a mistake or I'm missing something.

In chapter 27 he says (eqn 1) that \hat{T} is defined such that:

|P(t)> = \hat{T} |P(0)>

Where |P(0)> is a ket at time t=0 , and |P(t)> - at time t
Or equivalently |P(0)> is a ket in the Heisenberg picture, and |P(t)> - in the Schrödinger picture.

So this implies that:

<P(t)| = <P(0)| \hat{T}^{\dagger}

And then in chapter 32, eqn 45 implies that:

<P(t)| = <P(0)| \hat{T}

And I understand, that we can define it both ways, since it's a unitary operator. But we should stick to one way of defining it, and I'm sure Dirac does. So what it is here, that I'm not understanding properly?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Loro said:
So what it is here, that I'm not understanding properly?
I think this is essentially the same misunderstanding about selfadjoint operators which I clarified in your other thread.
 


Thanks again,

But here \hat{T} isn't self-adjoint. In fact it's unitary.
 


Yes, the T's are not identical, one is the adjoint of the other.
 


Thanks,

Yes. I'm sorry, but I still don't understand how this connects to my question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K