Proof: Time independence of the entropy under unitary time evolution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the time independence of entropy under unitary time evolution of a density operator. The unitary evolution is expressed mathematically, and the entropy is defined using the density operator. Participants explore the differentiation of the logarithm of a matrix and the application of the chain rule in this context. Different approaches to the proof are suggested, including using the Hamiltonian and diagonalization of the density operator. The conversation emphasizes that the entropy function is dependent on the density operator and remains invariant under unitary transformations.
barcodeIIIII
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The unitary time evolution of the density operator is given by
$$\rho(t)=\textrm{exp}(-\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht)\,\rho_0 \,\textrm{exp}(\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht)$$
General definition of entropy is
$$S=-k_B\,Tr\,\{\rho(t) ln \rho(t)\}$$
Proof: $$\frac{dS}{dt}=0$$

Homework Equations


I am not very clear how does the chain rule works in matrix derivative, also how do I differentiate 'ln' of a matrix?
$$\frac{d}{dt} ln\,\rho(t)=?$$
Any insights would be great, Thank you

The Attempt at a Solution


$$ \frac{dS}{dt}=-k_B \,Tr \, \{\frac{d}{dt}[\rho(t)\,ln\,\rho(t)]\} $$
$$\frac{dS}{dt}=-k_B\,Tr\, \{ \frac{ d}{dt} \rho(t) ln\,\rho(t)+ \frac{d}{dt} [ln\, \rho(t) ] \rho(t) \}$$
where $$\frac{d}{dt} \rho (t)=-\frac{i}{\hbar} [H, \rho(t)]$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How is the logarithm of a matrix defined, or how can you express it in other ways? You should be able to find the time-derivative of this.

The trace is linear in the matrix components, exchanging it with derivatives is not an issue.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
I got this proof in my last quantum statistical mechanics exam, I remember it pretty well.
So there are two ways, one using $$\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{1}{i\hbar}\left[\mathcal{H},\rho\right]$$
Where $\mathcal{H}$ is your Hamiltonian. (My professor suggests this as it should be easier but imho it's really not).
The other one is an elegant proof using diagonalizations and diagonal operators' invariance under unitary transformations.
So, since
$$\rho=\rho^{\dagger}\longrightarrow\exists!U\in U(n)\text{ s.t. }\tilde{\rho}=U^{\dagger}\rho U$$
And your new ρ is diagonalized. Now we can define Entropy in terms of this diagonalized density operator
\begin{align*}
&S=-Tr\left(k_B\rho\log(\rho)\right)\\
&S=-Tr\left(k_B\rho U\log(\tilde{\rho})U^{\dagger}\right)
\end{align*}
Now we can use the main property of unitary transformations, that is
$$U^{\dagger}U=UU^{\dagger}=Id$$
And we can then stick it inside our previous equation
$$S=-Tr\left(k_BUU^{\dagger}\rho UU^{\dagger}U\log(\tilde{\rho})UU^{\dagger}U^{\dagger}\right)$$
Simplifying everything and substituting the definition of our diagonalized density matrix we get
\begin{align*}
&S=Tr\left(k_BU\tilde{\rho}\log(\tilde{\rho})U^{\dagger}\right)\\
&S(\rho)=-UTr\left(-k_B\tilde{\rho}\log(\tilde{\rho})\right)U^{\dagger}=US(\tilde{\rho})U^{\dagger}
\end{align*}
Since by definition time evolutions are unitary operators and diagonalized operators are invariant under unitary transformations we get
$$U(t)^{\dagger}S(\rho)U(t)=S(U(t)^{\dagger}\rho U(t))=US(U(t)^{\dagger}\tilde{\rho}U(t))U^{\dagger}=US(\tilde{\rho})U^{\dagger}=S(\rho)_{\square}$$
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
I am having trouble trying to understand the quantity ##S(\rho)##, is it a scalar or matrix and how does it differ from ##S##? Moreover since the thing in the middle of
Birrabenzina said:
\begin{align*}
-UTr\left(-k_B\tilde{\rho}\log(\tilde{\rho})\right)U^{\dagger}
\end{align*}
is just a number, shouldn't it be possible to write it as
\begin{align*}
-UTr\left(-k_B\tilde{\rho}\log(\tilde{\rho})\right)U^{\dagger} = -UU^\dagger Tr\left(-k_B\tilde{\rho}\log(\tilde{\rho})\right) = Tr\left(k_B\tilde{\rho}\log(\tilde{\rho})\right)
\end{align*}
 
S isn't just a scalar, that's a function of the density operator, hence you want to diagonalize that operator through a transformation, in order to say that S is invariant through time transformations
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top