How do non-Hermitian Hamiltonians explain particle decay and quasi-bound states?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wofsy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Non-hermitian
wofsy
Messages
724
Reaction score
0
Can someone explain how non-Hermitian Hamiltonians are used to account for particle decay?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hermitian operators always have real eigenvalues. Non-Hermitian operators can have complex eigenvalues. The evolution of an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian is ~exp(-iEt) where E is the energy. If E is complex, there could be a decay.
 
genneth said:
Hermitian operators always have real eigenvalues. Non-Hermitian operators can have complex eigenvalues. The evolution of an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian is ~exp(-iEt) where E is the energy. If E is complex, there could be a decay.

I infer from you terse reply that the decay is seen in the imaginary part of the eigen-value. It becomes an exponential decay of the state amplitudes. Yes?
 
wofsy said:
I infer from you terse reply that the decay is seen in the imaginary part of the eigen-value. It becomes an exponential decay of the state amplitudes. Yes?

Yes, imaginary eigenvalues mean that the probability of finding the particle decreases exponentially with time (decay). However, you should keep in mind that this is an approximate way to study decays. In this approach the probability is not conserved and the evolution is non-unitary, which contradicts basic postulates of quantum mechanics.

If you want to have a rigorous model of decays, you'll need to form a bigger Hilbert space, which includes states of both unstable particle and its decay products. In this Hilbert space the decay can be described by a Hermitian Hamiltonian and unitary time evolution operator. The total probability will be conserved, as required. The decreasing probability of finding the particle will be compensated by increasing probability of finding decay products.
 
meopemuk said:
Yes, imaginary eigenvalues mean that the probability of finding the particle decreases exponentially with time (decay). However, you should keep in mind that this is an approximate way to study decays. In this approach the probability is not conserved and the evolution is non-unitary, which contradicts basic postulates of quantum mechanics.

If you want to have a rigorous model of decays, you'll need to form a bigger Hilbert space, which includes states of both unstable particle and its decay products. In this Hilbert space the decay can be described by a Hermitian Hamiltonian and unitary time evolution operator. The total probability will be conserved, as required. The decreasing probability of finding the particle will be compensated by increasing probability of finding decay products.

very cool. Thanks
 
You could also consider cases where particles are not bound perfectly, but within a finite barrier. In such case you could find so called meta stable eigen states, which have imaginary components. The Hamiltonian is Hermitian though, but the boundary conditions are wave like at the boundary. Here the decay of the wave function is compensated by the fact that a current is produced outwards (or inwards) at the quasi bound domain, i.e.,

\frac{d\mid\Psi\mid^2}{dt}+\nabla\cdot\vec{j}=0

where the quantum current j is non vanishing. There are some simple cases where you could solve this exactly, like V=V0 for a<x<a+d and V=infinite at x<0 and else V=0. Eigenstates are normally degenerated symmetrically so that E=E0+/-i*Ej which means yo have both decaying and growing solution in time.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Back
Top