- #1

- 99

- 0

Thanks!

P.S. I know I could just start with ##A_I(t)=e^{iH_0t/\hbar}A_Se^{-iH_0t/\hbar}##, where ##A_S## is in the Schrodinger picture, and I can derive the equation this way, but I feel like it should work the other way too.

- Thread starter copernicus1
- Start date

- #1

- 99

- 0

Thanks!

P.S. I know I could just start with ##A_I(t)=e^{iH_0t/\hbar}A_Se^{-iH_0t/\hbar}##, where ##A_S## is in the Schrodinger picture, and I can derive the equation this way, but I feel like it should work the other way too.

- #2

DrClaude

Mentor

- 7,554

- 3,894

Could you please show your derivation?

- #3

- 99

- 0

- #4

DrClaude

Mentor

- 7,554

- 3,894

I guess this is where it doesn't work. Since ##[H_0, V] \neq 0##, ##e^{i (H_0 + V) t/ \hbar} \neq e^{i H_0 t/ \hbar} e^{i V t/ \hbar}##.I then replace ##H_S=H_{0,S}+V_S## everywhere

- #5

- 99

- 0

Ah, interesting! Thanks for pointing that out.

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 980

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 901

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 8K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 3K