Physical interpretation of a Hamiltonian with a constraint

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the physical interpretation of a constraint imposed on a Hamiltonian, specifically the condition Tr(Ĥ²) = 2ω², where ω is a constant. Participants explore the implications of this constraint without a clear physical context provided by the original poster.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the physical interpretation of the constraint depends heavily on the context in which it is applied, noting the absence of such context in the original post.
  • One participant proposes that the Hamiltonian may describe a two-state system, inferring this from the factor of 2 in the trace condition.
  • Another participant elaborates that the trace of the Hamiltonian squared relates to the sum of the eigenvalues, providing examples of possible energy eigenvalue configurations that satisfy the trace condition.
  • There is a challenge to the notion that the trace condition serves as a constraint on the Hamiltonian, with a participant arguing it is merely a characteristic of the eigenvalues rather than a restrictive condition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the physical interpretation of the constraint or its implications. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the nature of the Hamiltonian and the significance of the trace condition.

Contextual Notes

The discussion lacks a clear physical context for the constraint, which may limit the interpretations offered. There are also unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the Hamiltonian and its eigenvalues.

Alex Cros
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Dear physics forums,

What is the physical interpretation of imposing the following constrain on a Hamiltonian:
Tr(\hat H^2)=2\omega ^2
where \omega is a given constant. I am not very familiar with why is the trace of the hamiltonian there.

Thanks in advance,
Alex
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The physical interpretation requires a physical context, and you didn't explain the physical context. At the very least, you should provide the reference in which this constraint is introduced.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin
Without the context, I would guess that the Hamiltonian describes a two-state system (hence the factor 2) both of which have the same energy ##\omega##.
 
Demystifier said:
Without the context, I would guess that the Hamiltonian describes a two-state system (hence the factor 2) both of which have the same energy ##\omega##.

In case the OP didn't know this already---for any operator, the trace is equal to the sum of the eigenvalues. So if the trace of H^2 is 2\omega^2, then it means that the energy eigenvalues are such that E_1^2 + E_2^2 + ... = 2\omega^2. Demystifier's example is one of the simplest: E_1 = E_2 = \omega. Or it could be E_1 = \omega, E_2 = -\omega. Or it could be E_1 = \omega, E_2 = \omega/\sqrt{2}, E_3 = \omega/\sqrt{4}, E_4 = \omega/\sqrt{8} ...

The sum of the eigenvalues doesn't seem to me to be a "constraint" on the Hamiltonian, it's just a fact about it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 155 ·
6
Replies
155
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 826 ·
28
Replies
826
Views
91K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K