Why does the time evolution operator require a hermitian Hamiltonian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hermitian
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the requirement for the Hamiltonian to be Hermitian in the context of the unitary time evolution operator in quantum mechanics. Participants are exploring the implications of this requirement through the infinitesimal time evolution operator.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are examining the expression for the time evolution operator and its adjoint, questioning the necessity for the Hamiltonian to be Hermitian. There are discussions about the implications of cross terms and the nature of imaginary components in the expansion.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights into the mathematical expansion of the time evolution operator, noting that for the product of the operator and its adjoint to equal the identity operator, certain terms must vanish. There is an ongoing exploration of the conditions under which this occurs, with some participants expressing clarity while others continue to question specific aspects of the derivation.

Contextual Notes

Participants are operating under the assumption that the time evolution operator is defined in a linear approximation, which leads to the neglect of higher-order terms in the expansion.

cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Show that the unitary time evolution time operator requires that the Hamiltonian
be hermitian.
And then it tells us to use the infinitesimal time evolution operator.

The Attempt at a Solution


U(dt)=1-\frac{iHdt}{\hbar}

so now we take U^tU=(1+\frac{iH^tdt}{\hbar})( 1-\frac{iHdt}{\hbar})
When I multiply this out it still is not obvious to me why H need to be hermitian.
although I could make an argument about the cross terms with i's in them
if H is not hermitian then I would have an imaginary number in my expansion and that would
not be equal to 1. But then my last term with H^tH might have some i's in it to cancel the i's from the cross terms but if this were the case H would need to have i's in it and the cross terms would not have i's after they were multiplied to H.
What do you guys think.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We expand your expression out in full:
U^{\dagger}U = (1+ i H^{\dagger} dt) (1 - i H dt ) = 1 - i H dt + i H^{\dagger} dt + i H^{\dagger} H (dt)^{2} = 1 + i (H^{\dagger} - H) dt
neglecting the (dt)^{2} term as per usual, and setting \hbar to 1.
But then my last term with H^tH might have some i's in it to cancel the i's from the cross terms but if this were the case H would need to have i's in it and the cross terms would not have i's after they were multiplied to H.
I think you are too preoccupied with whether i (H^{\dagger} - H) dt is real or imaginary. It doesn't matter! For U^{\dagger}U to be equal to 1, that cross term has to vanish totally.
 
I don't see why that cross term has to vanish though.
 
You already have the unit operator in the RHS, it comes from multilplying the unit operators in each bracket. So you must have

\hat{1} + i\left(\hat{H}^{\dagger}-\hat{H}\right) dt \equiv \hat{1}
 
ok dex I could see how your expression in post # 4 would force H to be hermitian but
where did the iH^tH{dt}^2 term go.
 
Well, you're interested in the linear approximation of the product of U and U^dagger, since both U and U^dagger are linear to start with. You must discard the quadratic term.
 
ok thanks for everyones response, it cleared things up.
so we are not just neglecting the dt^2 term because it is really small.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K