Time dependence of operators in the Schrödinger picture

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the time dependence of operators in the Schrödinger picture of quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to their representation in the Heisenberg picture. Participants explore the implications of time-dependent potentials and the conditions under which operators may exhibit explicit time dependence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while operators in the Schrödinger picture are often considered time-independent, this is not a strict requirement, as time-dependent potentials can lead to time-dependent Hamiltonians.
  • One participant questions the assumption that the time derivative of operators in the Schrödinger picture must be zero, suggesting that explicit time dependence can exist.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the fundamental operators representing observables are defined to be time-independent in the Schrödinger picture, with time evolution occurring in the states instead.
  • There is a discussion about the mathematical distinction between explicit time dependence and total time dependence, with some participants seeking clarity on how these concepts are defined.
  • One participant provides examples of physical systems where explicitly time-dependent operators are necessary, such as an electron in a time-dependent electromagnetic field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of time independence for operators in the Schrödinger picture. While some argue that it is a defining characteristic, others contend that explicit time dependence can occur without contradicting this notion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise conditions under which operators may exhibit time dependence.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of distinguishing between explicit time dependence and total time dependence, indicating that the definitions and assumptions surrounding these terms are crucial to the discussion.

The Tortoise-Man
Messages
95
Reaction score
5
I found in wikipedia following formula describing the derivative of operator ## A_H ## considered in Heisenberg picture, where ## A_S ## is it's representation in Schroedinger picture:

## \frac{d}{dt}A_\text{H}(t)=\frac{i}{\hbar}[H_\text{H},A_\text{H}(t)]+\left( \frac{\partial A_\text{S}}{\partial t} \right)_\text{H} . ##Note that ## A_H ## and ## A_S ## are related via ## A_{\mathrm{H}}(t) = e^{iHt/\hbar} A_{\mathrm{S}}(t) e^{-iHt/\hbar} ##.What I not understand is why ## \frac{\partial A_\text{S}}{\partial t} ## isn' t zero ? So far I learned it in Schrödinger picture every operator is time independent, so it' time derivative must be zero, right?Or, how does exacty the the 'sloppy' posed assumption on time independence of operators in Schrödinger picture reads in precise mathematical terms? Should it be that there is no explicit time dependence or total time dependence, ie do operators considered through glasses of Schrödinger picture satisfy ## \frac{\partial A_\text{S}}{\partial t} ## or ## \frac{d A_\text{S}}{d t} ## ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
So for operators represented in Schrödinger picture time independence is not an obligatory condition, but happens just often in practice? So one may say that the choice to work in Schrödinger picture provides most advantages when the operators one is dealing with are time independent, but it's not required at all? But what one can say that in Schrödinger all operators satisfy ## \frac{\partial A_\text{S}}{\partial t} = \frac{d A_\text{S}}{d t} ##
 
The Tortoise-Man said:
I found in wikipedia following formula describing the derivative of operator ## A_H ## considered in Heisenberg picture, where ## A_S ## is it's representation in Schroedinger picture:

## \frac{d}{dt}A_\text{H}(t)=\frac{i}{\hbar}[H_\text{H},A_\text{H}(t)]+\left( \frac{\partial A_\text{S}}{\partial t} \right)_\text{H} . ##Note that ## A_H ## and ## A_S ## are related via ## A_{\mathrm{H}}(t) = e^{iHt/\hbar} A_{\mathrm{S}}(t) e^{-iHt/\hbar} ##.What I not understand is why ## \frac{\partial A_\text{S}}{\partial t} ## isn' t zero ? So far I learned it in Schrödinger picture every operator is time independent, so it' time derivative must be zero, right?Or, how does exacty the the 'sloppy' posed assumption on time independence of operators in Schrödinger picture reads in precise mathematical terms? Should it be that there is no explicit time dependence or total time dependence, ie do operators considered through glasses of Schrödinger picture satisfy ## \frac{\partial A_\text{S}}{\partial t} ## or ## \frac{d A_\text{S}}{d t} ## ?
That's what one should better call "explicit time dependence".

A concrete physical system is described with self-adjoint operators in Hilbert space, representing observables, that are themselves built with a few basic operators with which you can built all other observables of the system. E.g., for a single non-relativsitic particle with zero spin the few basic operators can be chosen as ##\hat{\vec{x}}## and ##\hat{\vec{p}}##, which obey the usual commutation relations
$$[\hat{x}_j,\hat{x}_k]=0, \quad [\hat{p}_j,\hat{p}_k]=0, \quad [\hat{x}_j,\hat{p}_k]=\mathrm{i} \frac{\hbar}{2} \hat{1}.$$
These operators are by definition time-independent in the Schrödinger picture of time evolution.

Nevertheless you can have physical situations, where you need explicitly time-dependent operators that represent observables. This is, e.g., the case if you consider an electron in a time-dependent external electromagnetic field. In the usual semi-classical approximation, where the field is not quantized, then your Hamiltonian reads
$$\hat{H}=\frac{1}{2m} [\hat{\vec{p}}-q \vec{A}(t,\hat{\vec{x}})]^2+q \Phi(t,\hat{\vec{x}}).$$
Here the Hamiltonian is explicitly time dependent in the Schrödinger picture, i.e., ##\hat{\vec{x}}## and ##\hat{\vec{p}}## are time-independent, but ##\hat{H}## has an explicit time dependence through the electromagnetic potentials.

In the Schrödinger picture and arbitrary self-adjoint operator, representing an observable with explicit time dependence you have
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \hat{A}(t,\hat{\vec{x}},\hat{\vec{p}})=\frac{\partial \hat{A}(t,\hat{\vec{x}},\hat{\vec{p}})}{\partial t},$$
and of course the partial derivative here refers only to the explicit time dependence.

You get from the Schrödinger picture to the Heisenberg picture by an explicitly time dependent unitary transformation, which is given in the case of a Hamiltonian that is NOT explicitly time dependent,
$$\hat{A}_{\text{H}}(t,\hat{\vec{x}}_{\text{H}},\hat{\vec{p}}_{\text{H}})=\exp(\mathrm{i} t \hat{H}/\hbar) \hat{A}(t,\hat{\vec{x}},\hat{\vec{p}}) \exp(-\mathrm{i} t \hat{H}/\hbar).$$
From this you get
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \hat{A}_{\text{H}}(t,\hat{\vec{x}}_{\text{H}},\hat{\vec{p}}_{\text{H}}) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{i} \hbar} [\hat{A}_{\text{H}},\hat{H}] + \partial_t \hat{A}_{\text{H}}.$$
In the time derivative of the Heisenberg picture the commutator with the Hamiltonian takes care of the time dependence of ##\hat{\vec{x}}_{\text{H}}## and ##\hat{\vec{p}}_{\text{H}}## and the partial time derivative again of the explicit time dependence of ##\hat{A}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: The Tortoise-Man, LittleSchwinger, DrClaude and 1 other person
The Tortoise-Man said:
So for operators represented in Schrödinger picture time independence is not an obligatory condition, but happens just often in practice?
In general, something being a function of time does not prohibit something being constant in time. That's just a special case.
 
As I said in #4, by definition the fundamental operators of the observable-algebra representation in the Schrödinger picture of time evolution are time-independent, and the entire time evolution is in the states (statistical operators/state kets). Consequently, in the Schrödinger picture a possible time-dependence of an observable is entirely an explicit time dependence.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LittleSchwinger

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K