Interaction picture equation from Heisenberg equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the interaction picture equation from the Heisenberg picture equation of motion in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the mathematical transition between these two frameworks, focusing on the role of the Hamiltonian components and the challenges encountered in the derivation process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states the Heisenberg picture equation of motion and attempts to derive the interaction picture equation, noting the presence of both the free Hamiltonian and the interaction Hamiltonian in the original equation.
  • Another participant requests a derivation to clarify the steps taken in the initial approach.
  • A different participant describes their method of transforming the Heisenberg equation using the definitions of the Heisenberg picture operators and the Hamiltonian, but encounters difficulty due to the non-commutativity of the Hamiltonian components.
  • One participant highlights that the assumption of separability in the exponentials does not hold because the commutation relation between the free Hamiltonian and the interaction Hamiltonian is non-zero.
  • A later reply expresses appreciation for the insight regarding the non-commutativity issue, indicating a recognition of the complexity involved in the derivation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the derivation process, with multiple competing views on how to handle the Hamiltonian components and their implications for the transformation between pictures.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in the assumptions made regarding the Hamiltonian's structure and the implications of non-commutativity, which remain unresolved in the context of the derivation.

copernicus1
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
The standard Heisenberg picture equation of motion is $$i\hbar\frac d{dt}A_H=[A_H,H],$$ assuming no explicit ##t##-dependence on the Heisenberg-picture operator ##A_H##. I've been trying to go directly from this equation to the corresponding interaction-picture equation, $$i\hbar\frac d{dt}A_I=[A_I,H_0],$$ (see Sakurai 5.5.12) which I thought at first would be simple, but I keep coming up with $$i\hbar\frac d{dt}A_I=[A_I,H_0]+[A_I,V_I],$$ where ##V_I## is the interaction part of the hamiltonian in the interaction picture. The basic problem is that in the original equation ##H## contains both ##H_0## and ##V## and I don't know how to get rid of the ##V## part. Has anyone been through this calculation?

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 Schrödinger picture, and I can derive the equation this way, but I feel like it should work the other way too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you please show your derivation?
 
I start with $$i\hbar\frac{}d{dt}A_H(t)=[A_H(t),H_H(t)]$$ (subscript means Heisenberg picture) and plug in ##A_H(t)=e^{iH_St/\hbar}A_Se^{-iH_St/\hbar}## and ##H_H(t)=e^{iH_St/\hbar}H_Se^{-iH_St/\hbar}##. (I then replace ##H_S=H_{0,S}+V_S## everywhere and transform both sides of the original Heisenberg equation using $$i\hbar\frac{}d{dt}e^{-iV_St/\hbar}A_H(t)e^{iV_St/\hbar}=e^{-iV_St/\hbar}[A_H(t),H_H(t)]e^{iV_St/\hbar}.$$ Simplify and I'm left with $$i\hbar\frac{d}{dt}A_I(t)=A_I(t)e^{iH_{0,S}t/\hbar}H_Se^{-iH_{0,S}t/\hbar}-e^{iH_{0,S}t/\hbar}H_Se^{-iH_{0,S}t/\hbar}A_I(t),$$ but ##H_S\neq H_{0,S}##. If it did I would be done. Instead it's ##H_S=H_{0,S}+V_S##. This is where I get stuck.
 
copernicus1 said:
I then replace ##H_S=H_{0,S}+V_S## everywhere
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}##.
 
Ah, interesting! Thanks for pointing that out.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K