Hamiltonian eigenstate problem

In summary: Note that you cannot do this by simply solving the time-independent Schrodinger equation with ##H(t_1)## as the Hamiltonian. You need to take into account the time-dependence of the Hamiltonian in between t_1 and t_2.Here is the main nontrivial part of the problem: Suppose the state of the system at ##t = t' - \epsilon## is ##\psi_0##. What is the state at ##t = t' + \epsilon##? Assume ##\epsilon## is infinitesimal.You can get the answer to this sub-problem by integrating the Schrodinger equation over the time interval in question.Once you have solved this sub-problem, you should
  • #1
coki2000
91
0
Hi PF members,

I am stuck with a problem about larmor precession. I cannot find the eigenstates of the hamiltonian given as

[itex]H = \frac{\hbar}{2}\begin{pmatrix} \omega_{0} & \omega_{1}\delta(t-t') \\ \omega_{1}\delta(t-t') & \omega_{0} \end{pmatrix}[/itex]

Can anyone help me? Since it has time dependence I cannot figure out how to solve this problem.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Any advice :(
 
  • #3
coki2000 said:
Hi PF members,
[itex]H = \frac{\hbar}{2}\begin{pmatrix} \omega_{0} & \omega_{1}\delta(t-t') \\ \omega_{1}\delta(t-t') & \omega_{0} \end{pmatrix}[/itex]
I'm confused: are those ##\delta##'s Dirac delta functions? If so, then ##\hat{H}(t)## is ill-defined when ##t=t'##. (The integral ##\int \hat{H}(t) dt## can still be defined using step functions.)

I think there might be a typo in there, too. The usual way to write ##\hat{H}## for a spin-1/2 in a ##\mathbf{B}## field is:
##
\hat{H}
= - \tfrac{\hbar\omega_{0}}{2}\hat{\sigma}_z
= \frac{\hbar \omega_{0}}{2}\begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}
##
 
  • #4
NegativeDept said:
I'm confused: are those ##\delta##'s Dirac delta functions? If so, then ##\hat{H}(t)## is ill-defined when ##t=t'##. (The integral ##\int \hat{H}(t) dt## can still be defined using step functions.)

I think there might be a typo in there, too. The usual way to write ##\hat{H}## for a spin-1/2 in a ##\mathbf{B}## field is:
##
\hat{H}
= - \tfrac{\hbar\omega_{0}}{2}\hat{\sigma}_z
= \frac{\hbar \omega_{0}}{2}\begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}
##

Yes, they are dirac-delta functions. Those dirac-deltas stand there for representing a magnetic field pulse in x direction at t = t'
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Any ideas?
 
  • #6
coki2000 said:
Yes, they are dirac-delta functions. Those dirac-deltas stand there for representing a magnetic field pulse in x direction at t = t'
When ##t \neq t'##, ##\hat{H}## is ##\tfrac{1}{2}\hbar \omega_0## times the identity matrix. Then every vector is an eigenvector with eigenvalue ##\tfrac{1}{2}\hbar \omega_0##.

When ##t = t'##, ##\hat{H}## is
##
\hat{H} = \frac{\hbar}{2}
\begin{bmatrix}
\omega_0 & \infty \\
\infty & \omega_0
\end{bmatrix}
##
Then ##\hat{H}## is ill-defined. This is why I think the problem has somehow been miscommunicated.
 
  • #7
NegativeDept said:
When ##t \neq t'##, ##\hat{H}## is ##\tfrac{1}{2}\hbar \omega_0## times the identity matrix. Then every vector is an eigenvector with eigenvalue ##\tfrac{1}{2}\hbar \omega_0##.

When ##t = t'##, ##\hat{H}## is
##
\hat{H} = \frac{\hbar}{2}
\begin{bmatrix}
\omega_0 & \infty \\
\infty & \omega_0
\end{bmatrix}
##
Then ##\hat{H}## is ill-defined. This is why I think the problem has somehow been miscommunicated.

Yes I understand your point. But problem says that we apply an instantaneous magnetic field in x direction on the precessing particle at time t'. I tried to solve this like the dirac-delta potential problem but it is different I think. Because in this case I cannot find a time dependent wave function for the initial hamiltonian since now potential is time dependent. So we cannot separate time dependent solution and time-independent solution.
 
  • #8
When the Hamiltonian is time-dependent, there aren't really "eigenstates." Or rather, for a given t you can find the eigenstates of ##H(t)##, but the eigenstates for different t will in general be different.

However, note that for t < t' and t > t', the Hamiltonian is time-independent. You can find the eigenstates of the time-independent Hamiltonian that governs the system for these times. Then to connect t < t' to t > t' you need to integrate the Schrodinger equation

##i \hbar \frac{d}{dt} \psi(t) = H(t) \psi(t)##

over the infinitesimal interval ##t' - \epsilon < t < t' + \epsilon##. If you take ##\epsilon \to 0## this will give a simple relationship between ##\psi(t - \epsilon)## and ##\psi(t + \epsilon)##.

Mathematically, this procedure is much like the way in which you solve the time-independent Schrodinger equation for the potential ##V(x) = -V_0 \delta(x-x_0)##.
 
  • #9
The_Duck said:
When the Hamiltonian is time-dependent, there aren't really "eigenstates." Or rather, for a given t you can find the eigenstates of ##H(t)##, but the eigenstates for different t will in general be different.

However, note that for t < t' and t > t', the Hamiltonian is time-independent. You can find the eigenstates of the time-independent Hamiltonian that governs the system for these times. Then to connect t < t' to t > t' you need to integrate the Schrodinger equation

##i \hbar \frac{d}{dt} \psi(t) = H(t) \psi(t)##

over the infinitesimal interval ##t' - \epsilon < t < t' + \epsilon##. If you take ##\epsilon \to 0## this will give a simple relationship between ##\psi(t - \epsilon)## and ##\psi(t + \epsilon)##.

Mathematically, this procedure is much like the way in which you solve the time-independent Schrodinger equation for the potential ##V(x) = -V_0 \delta(x-x_0)##.

But in the larmor precession case, eigenvectors of the hamiltonian is all time-independent. How can I know the before and after wave functions. Before and after time t' wave functions are same.
 
  • #10
Here is the main nontrivial part of the problem:

Suppose the state of the system at ##t = t' - \epsilon## is ##\psi_0##. What is the state at ##t = t' + \epsilon##? Assume ##\epsilon## is infinitesimal.

You can get the answer to this sub-problem by integrating the Schrodinger equation over the time interval in question.

Once you have solved this sub-problem, you should be able to extend it to answer the general question: given the state of the system at any time ##t_1##, what is the state at any other time ##t_2##?
 

1. What is the Hamiltonian eigenstate problem?

The Hamiltonian eigenstate problem is a mathematical problem in quantum mechanics that involves finding the possible energy states of a quantum system. It is also known as the Schrödinger equation and is essential in understanding the behavior of quantum particles.

2. How is the Hamiltonian eigenstate problem solved?

The Hamiltonian eigenstate problem is solved by using the Schrödinger equation, which is a differential equation that describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes with time. The solution to this equation provides the possible energy states of the system.

3. Why is the Hamiltonian eigenstate problem important?

The Hamiltonian eigenstate problem is important because it helps us understand and predict the behavior of quantum systems. It allows us to calculate the energy levels of a system and determine the probabilities of different outcomes of quantum interactions.

4. What is the difference between an eigenstate and an eigenvalue in the Hamiltonian eigenstate problem?

An eigenstate is a quantum state of a system that remains unchanged when measured, while an eigenvalue is the corresponding energy value associated with that state. In the Hamiltonian eigenstate problem, the eigenvalues represent the possible energy levels of the system, and the eigenstates describe the corresponding quantum states.

5. How does the Hamiltonian eigenstate problem relate to quantum mechanics?

The Hamiltonian eigenstate problem is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics as it is used to describe the behavior of quantum systems. It is a key tool in predicting the behavior of particles at the subatomic level and has played a crucial role in the development of modern physics.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
765
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
679
Replies
1
Views
754
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
520
Replies
5
Views
903
Replies
9
Views
456
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top