Time derivative in the Heisenberg picture?

pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
On the Wikipedia page for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_picture#Mathematical_details" we find this relation

\frac{d}{dt}A(t)=\frac{i}{\hbar}[H,A(t)]+\left(\frac{\partial A}{\partial t}\right)

I don't understand what the distinction between

\frac{d}{dt}A(t) and \left(\frac{\partial A}{\partial t}\right)

is supposed to be. That is, what is the difference between the meaning of these two expressions?

For regular old c-number functions, the difference between total and partial derivatives is something like

\frac{df}{dt}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial u}\frac{du}{dt}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}.

where f = f(u,t). If f doesn't depend on other variables, then \frac{df}{dt}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Recall that in the Heisenberg Picture we express the time evolution of the observables for a dynamically evolving system by time varying the operators, leaving the Hilbert space vectors (e.g. wave-functions) fixed at their initial values.

So for a fixed observable, there will be a time dependence relating to the evolution of the system being observed. That is the component of the total time derivative expressed by the commutator.

But in the general setting we can also consider a time varying observable i.e. imagine a polarizer which is rotating over time. This explicit time evolution of the observational device is expressed by an explicit time dependence of the operator and that's the partial derivative w.r.t. t component.

Again this is somewhat confusing since in Physics we too often express both function and functional value (variable) with the same symbol.

Imagine the observable A(t) in the Heisenberg picture is expressed as a function 'a' of the initial operator (the operator corresponding to measuring the system at time t=0) and also a function of t directly indicating a time evolution of the measuring device:
A(t) = a(t,A_0).

Then
\frac{dA}{dt} = \frac{i}{\hbar} [H,A(t)] + \frac{\partial a}{\partial t}

[edit]
It may be helpful to think of the A as the correspondent of the value of a classical observable. Then consider say a position as seen by a moving observer relative to a given frame. There are two components, the motion of the particle (in the given frame) and the motion of the observer. With frame transformation x' = x+ X(t) we have:
dx'/dt = dx/dt + dX/dt which becomes in QM [H,x] + dX/dt.
 
Last edited:
That was very helpful, jambaugh. thank you!
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top