Hamiltonian eigenstate problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter coki2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eigenstate Hamiltonian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the problem of finding the eigenstates of a time-dependent Hamiltonian related to Larmor precession. Participants explore the implications of the Dirac delta functions in the Hamiltonian and the challenges posed by its time dependence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in finding the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian due to its time dependence.
  • Another participant questions whether the delta functions are Dirac delta functions and notes that the Hamiltonian is ill-defined when \(t = t'\).
  • It is clarified that the Dirac delta functions represent a magnetic field pulse in the x direction at \(t = t'\).
  • Some participants suggest that when \(t \neq t'\), the Hamiltonian simplifies to \(\tfrac{1}{2}\hbar \omega_0\) times the identity matrix, making every vector an eigenvector.
  • Concerns are raised about the ill-defined nature of the Hamiltonian at \(t = t'\) and the potential miscommunication of the problem.
  • Discussion includes the idea that for a time-dependent Hamiltonian, eigenstates can differ at different times, but the Hamiltonian is time-independent for \(t < t'\) and \(t > t'\).
  • One participant proposes integrating the Schrödinger equation over an infinitesimal interval around \(t'\) to relate the wave functions before and after this time.
  • A later reply emphasizes the need to solve a sub-problem regarding the state of the system at \(t = t' - \epsilon\) and its state at \(t = t' + \epsilon\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the time-dependent Hamiltonian and the nature of the eigenstates. There is no consensus on the resolution of the problem, and multiple competing perspectives remain.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential miscommunication of the problem setup and the unresolved nature of the Hamiltonian at \(t = t'\). The discussion also highlights the dependence on the definitions of the Hamiltonian and the treatment of time-dependent versus time-independent scenarios.

coki2000
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
Hi PF members,

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

H = \frac{\hbar}{2}\begin{pmatrix} \omega_{0} &amp; \omega_{1}\delta(t-t&#039;) \\ \omega_{1}\delta(t-t&#039;) &amp; \omega_{0} \end{pmatrix}

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
Any advice :(
 
coki2000 said:
Hi PF members,
H = \frac{\hbar}{2}\begin{pmatrix} \omega_{0} &amp; \omega_{1}\delta(t-t&#039;) \\ \omega_{1}\delta(t-t&#039;) &amp; \omega_{0} \end{pmatrix}
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}
##
 
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:
Any ideas?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 Schrödinger 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 Schrödinger equation for the potential ##V(x) = -V_0 \delta(x-x_0)##.
 
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 Schrödinger 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 Schrödinger 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 Schrödinger 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##?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K