Perturbation Theory: Deciphering Missing Lines of Explanation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vertices
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pertubation Theory
vertices
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Again, I am having difficulty deciphering my class notes - in this case there are missing lines of explanation. If we consider a system of particles that approach and interact, the Heisenberg representation of the interacting field is:

[tex]\phi(\vec{x} , t) = U^{-1} (t) \phi_{a} (\vec{x} , t) U(t)[/tex]

(where [tex]\phi_a[/tex] is the free field before the interaction.

Why is it that we can write:

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \phi_{a}= \frac{\partial}{\partial t} U \phi U^{-1}=[\frac{\partial}{\partial t} UU^{-1},\phi_{a}]+iU[H,\phi]U^{-1}[/tex]

where the square brackets in the third equality are commutators?

I don't understand where the third expression comes from?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
vertices said:
Again, I am having difficulty deciphering my class notes - in this case there are missing lines of explanation. If we consider a system of particles that approach and interact, the Heisenberg representation of the interacting field is:

[tex]\phi(\vec{x} , t) = U^{-1} (t) \phi_{a} (\vec{x} , t) U(t)[/tex]

(where [tex]\phi_a[/tex] is the free field before the interaction.

Why is it that we can write:

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \phi_{a}= \frac{\partial}{\partial t} U \phi U^{-1}=[\frac{\partial}{\partial t} UU^{-1},\phi_{a}]+iU[H,\phi]U^{-1}[/tex]

where the square brackets in the third equality are commutators?

I don't understand where the third expression comes from?

Thanks.

[tex] \frac{\partial \phi_a}{\partial t} = <br /> \frac{\partial U}{\partial t} \phi U^{-1} <br /> + U\phi\frac{\partial U^{-1}}{\partial t} <br /> + U\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t}U^{-1} <br /> ...(*)[/tex]
where the last term of RHS involves the derivative of time with respect to the field [tex]\phi[/tex] whose equation of motion is well known, the Heisenberg's EoM.

For the first two terms of eq(*), note that,
[tex]\frac{\partial U^{-1}}{\partial t} = -U^{-1}\frac{\partial U}{\partial t} U^{-1}[/tex]
then you will see why they can be grouped into
[tex] \left[ <br /> \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}U^{-1} , \phi_a<br /> \right][/tex]
 
ismaili said:
[tex]\frac{\partial U^{-1}}{\partial t} = -U^{-1}\frac{\partial U}{\partial t} U^{-1}[/tex]

I do not recall this identity .. can you provide a brief derivation/proof/justification? It seems quite useful ...
 
Take time derivative of both sides of the equality

[tex]1 = UU^{-1}[/tex]

Eugene.
 
meopemuk said:
Take time derivative of both sides of the equality

[tex]1 = UU^{-1}[/tex]

Eugene.

That'll do it ... and it certainly was brief. :redface: Thanks!
 
Thank you ever so much ismaili - spent ages trying to see this!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
  • · Replies 113 ·
4
Replies
113
Views
14K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K