I [QFT-Schwartz Page. 256] Violation of operator exponentiation rule ?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the application of operator exponentiation rules in quantum mechanics, particularly regarding the Hamiltonian expressed as ##\hat{H} = \frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}+\hat{V}(\hat{x_j},t_j)##. It highlights a potential violation of the operator exponentiation rule, suggesting that the relation $$ e^{\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}+\hat{V}(\hat{x_j},t_j)} = e^{\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}}\times e^{\hat{V}(\hat{x_j},t_j)}$$ presupposes that the operators commute, which may not be generally true. The discussion further explores the implications of small time intervals, where the commutation relation ##[\hat A, \hat B]## is proportional to ##\delta t^2##, allowing for an approximation that simplifies the exponentiation. Ultimately, the conclusion reached is that under certain conditions, the approximation makes sense, validating the initial thought process.
Golak Bage
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Schwartz derives path integral formulation from 'non-relativistic QM'.
When computing the projection of time-evoluted state ## |x_j> ## on ## |x_{j+1}> ## it uses the 'completeness' of momentum basis ## \int \frac{dp}{2\pi} |p><p| ##. Next it explicitly states the form of Hamiltonian ## \hat{H} = \frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}+\hat{V}(\hat{x_j},t_j) ##. Thereafter i believe it uses the relation $$ e^{\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}+\hat{V}(\hat{x_j},t_j)} = e^{\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}}\times e^{\hat{V}(\hat{x_j},t_j)}.$$ This pre-supposes that ##[\hat{p},\hat{V}(\hat{x_j},t_j)]=0##. In QM for any two operators (say ##\hat{A}\ \&\ \hat{B} ##) ##e^{\hat{A}+\hat{B}}=e^{\hat{A}}\times e^{\hat{B}}\times e^{-\frac{1}{2}[\hat{A}, \hat{B}]}##, therefore above relation doesn't appear general (it's more specific). I'd like some feedback on my thought.

Screenshot 2024-05-21 233704.png
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
Physics news on Phys.org
Golak Bage said:
##\large e^{\hat{A}+\hat{B}}=e^{\hat{A}}\times e^{\hat{B}}\times e^{-\frac{1}{2}[\hat{A}, \hat{B}]}##

Apply this to ##\large e^{-i[\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m} + V(\hat{x}_j, t_j) ] \delta t }. \,\,\,\,## So, ##\hat{A} = -i\frac{\hat p^2}{2m} \delta t## and ##\hat B =-iV(\hat x_j, t_j)\delta t##.

Note that ##[\hat A, \hat B]## is proportional to ##\delta t ^2. \,\,## If ##\delta t## is assumed to be very small, perhaps we can neglect terms of second order in ##\delta t## and approximate ##e^{-\frac{1}{2}[\hat{A}, \hat{B}]} \approx 1##.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, Demystifier and Golak Bage
TSny said:
Apply this to ##\large e^{-i[\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m} + V(\hat{x}_j, t_j) ] \delta t }. \,\,\,\,## So, ##\hat{A} = -i\frac{\hat p^2}{2m} \delta t## and ##\hat B =-iV(\hat x_j, t_j)\delta t##.

Note that ##[\hat A, \hat B]## is proportional to ##\delta t ^2. \,\,## If ##\delta t## is assumed to be very small, perhaps we can neglect terms of second order in ##\delta t## and approximate ##e^{-\frac{1}{2}[\hat{A}, \hat{B}]} \approx 1##.
Thank you. It actually makes sense.
 
For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K