Time Dependence in Pictures of QM

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of time dependence in different formulations of quantum mechanics, specifically the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures. Participants explore how time dependence can be represented in these frameworks, the implications of using time-dependent Hamiltonians, and the potential for constructing time-dependent states in the Heisenberg picture without resorting to the Interaction Picture.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that in the Schrödinger Picture, time dependence is typically in the state vector, but time-dependent Hamiltonians and operators can also be constructed.
  • Another participant suggests that the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures can be seen as extremes, with the possibility of moving time dependencies around to simplify equations, akin to changing coordinate systems.
  • A participant raises a question about the validity of using a time-dependent state in the Heisenberg picture and whether the definition of operators must also be adjusted accordingly.
  • One participant explains the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and the role of the time evolution operator, emphasizing that any unitary transformation can be applied without changing the physics, including time-dependent transformations.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of using a self-adjoint operator for transformations and how it can lead to different pictures while maintaining the same physical content.
  • Another participant highlights that time-dependent energy eigenstates do not appear in the Heisenberg picture, as it is defined to remove time dependence from such states, but acknowledges that arbitrary states can still be time-dependent in this framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of time dependence in the Heisenberg picture, with some suggesting it is possible to construct time-dependent states while others argue that this shifts the discussion away from the Heisenberg framework. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these transformations and the nature of time dependence in quantum states.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves complex mathematical transformations and the potential for different interpretations of time dependence in quantum mechanics. There are unresolved aspects regarding the definitions and implications of using time-dependent operators and states.

jonbones
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have a question about time dependence in the different pictures of QM. In the Schrödinger Picture, I've read that the time dependence is in the state vector, but one can construct Hamiltonians and other operators that are time dependent in the Schrödinger Picture. For instance, one can construct a time dependent potential in Schrödinger wave mechanics, and one would not be using the Interaction Picture. (But the equation would probably have to be solved numerically.)

Then could states in the Heisenberg Picture be constructed so that they are time dependent as well without invoking the Interaction Picture? I would think it's possible, but I assume it would usually lead to a difficult problem to solve and rarely done. Are there any references that talk about handling such cases?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Pictures" are a bit like coordinate systems: they have no deep physical meaning and you should usually just work in whatever picture is easiest to handle mathematically.

Now, the Schroeding and Heisenberg pictures are just the two "extremes", you can move (so to speak) time dependences around more or less as you want to simplify your equations and whenever you do that you are in the "interaction picture".
A good example would be if you have a hamiltonian with a time-varying electromagnetic field, sometimes you can then simplify things considerably by moving into a picture where the whole hamiltonian is rotating "with" the field.
(and if you then throw away some higher order terms you get the rotating wave approximation)

Note that you are always free to go back using another transformation.

Hence, this is not really very different from moving from e.g. carteesian coordinates to cylindrical coordinate to simply a PDE solved over a circle.
 
I think I follow you. So, for instance, in the rotating wave approx. where E is the electric field operator in the Heisenberg picture,

E = [itex]\sum[/itex]kl(akleklfkl(x)exp(-i[itex]\omega[/itex]t) + a+kle*klf*kl(x)exp(i[itex]\omega[/itex]t))

with <a|E2|a> as the the energy density expectation value, I could choose a state

|a(t)> = cos(t)|0> + sin(t)|2>

and compute <a(t)|E2|a(t)> and still get a "correct" answer. Or do I have to adjust the definition of E as well?
 
I think we should start with the following observation:

The time-dependent Schrödunger equation

[tex]i\partial_0\,|\psi,t\rangle = H\,|\psi,t\rangle[/tex]

can be solved using the time evolution operator

[tex]U(t) = e^{-iHt}[/tex]
[tex]|\psi,t\rangle = U(t)\,|\psi,0\rangle[/tex]

which you see by differentiating

[tex]i\partial_0\,U(t) = H\,U(t)[/tex]

Now for any operator A where you are interested in eigenvalues, expectation values or something like that and which you apply to a state |ψ>

[tex]A\,|\psi,t\rangle[/tex]

you can insert any unitary operator w/o changing physics:

[tex]A\,|\psi,t\rangle\;\to\;\Omega A \Omega^\dagger \Omega |\psi,t\rangle[/tex]

This is like a basis transformation which - as in linear algebra - acts both on the states (vectors) and on the operators (matrices). So you can introduce transformed states and operators as follows

[tex]|\psi,t\rangle\;\to\;{}^\Omega|\psi,t\rangle = \Omega |\psi,t\rangle[/tex]
[tex]A\;\to\;{}^\Omega A = \Omega A \Omega^\dagger[/tex]

In that way you can introduce time-independent coordinate transformations like translations (where Ω is represented as eiap using the momentum operator p) or rotations (where Ω is represented as eiθL using the angular momentum operator L).

But the unitary operator Ω is arbitrary and can be time dependent as well. So we can use something like

[tex]\Omega(t) = e^{-iGt}[/tex]

with a selfadjoint operator G.

1) If G=H the operator Ω generates the transformation between the Heisenberg and the Schrödinger picture, i.e. it fully shifts the motion generated by U(t) from the states to the operators and vice versa
2) If G=Hfree where Hfree is the free (and hopefully trivial) part of the full Hamiltonian H, the operator Ω generates the transformation between the interaction and the Schrödinger picture. The shift of the motion generated by U(t) is shifted from the states to the operators only partially!
3) If you have some Hamiltonian H= H°+εh you may chose G=H° which is similar to the interaction picture but now H° need not be the free Hamiltonian and could be a more complex but still solvable Hamiltonian. Like in the interaction picture the idea is to separate the motion in a trivial (= free or solvable) part and a complicated part such that the motion of the operators A is trivial and that only the states are subject to complicated motion.

But physics doesn't change at all. You are free to use any Ω, i.e. any selfadjoint G (as long as it simplifies the math).

Remark: time dependent energy eigenstates do not appear in the Heisenberg picture b/c the Heisenberg is defined such that the time dependence of such states is "rotated away". Using an operator Ω which introduces time dependency of such states should be interpreted as changing from the Heisenberg picture to something else. But there's a loophole in this argument: the starting point is the Schrödinger picture where a time dependent solution |ψ,t> of the Schrödinger equation is constructed using U(t). This solution is then transformed to the Heisenberg picture |ψ,0> where Ω(t) is identical to U(t). Therefore eigenstates of H become time independent. But if you start with an arbitrary state |ζ,t> which does NOT solve the Schrödinger equation, then the transformed state Ω|ζ,t> will NOT be time independent. Therefore the Heisenberg picture does contain time dependent states, but they are not eigenstates of H, i.,e. no solutions to the original problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K