How do I find the time evolution of a state with an operator in the Hamiltonian?

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Suppose I know an initial state \Phi(x)= \exp(-x^2), the Hamiltonian is

H = p^2/2m + x^2/2

where p is the mometum operator. If I want to find the time evolution of the state \Phi(x), should I write it as the following?

\Psi(x, t) = \exp(-i H t/\hbar)\Phi(x)

However, since H contains an operator, I don't know how to find the close form of the time-dependent state. Should I expand it as a series and then operate it on \Phi(x) term by term? But in this way, it seems not easy to combine the result to get the close form!?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The H in the exponential should be E - as in the energy of that eigenstate. I think what you have there is an Eigenstate (it's been a while since I did Quantum harmonic oscillators, and the forms I solved for were somewhat different so I'm not sure), if it isn't then you can't do this. You need to normalize the wave function, in any case.
 
Matterwave said:
The H in the exponential should be E - as in the energy of that eigenstate. I think what you have there is an Eigenstate (it's been a while since I did Quantum harmonic oscillators, and the forms I solved for were somewhat different so I'm not sure), if it isn't then you can't do this. You need to normalize the wave function, in any case.

Thank you. I read a text in which the author use the Fourier transformation to carry out the time-dependent state.

\Phi(k) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int dx \exp(-ikx) \Phi(x)

and then the time-dependent state is the inverse transformation of \exp(-iEt/\hbar)\Phi(k)

\Psi(x, t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int dk \exp(ikx)\Phi(k) \exp(-iEt/\hbar)

For harmonic oscillator, if H = p^2/2m, then E=\hbar^2k^2/2m, plug this into the inverse Fourier transformation will give the result directly. But if H also includes x^2/2, what does E (in terms of k) look like?

By the way, if we consider two coupling hamonic oscillator such that

H = p_1^2/2m + x_1^2/2 + p_2^2/2m + x_2^2/2 and we apply the Fourier transformation again to find the time-dependent state, how to write the Fourier transformation? Should it be 2D Fourier transformation?
 
Uhm...I don't think you need to worry about Fourier transforms for this problem (all you did was transform the function over to wave number space and then transform it back... tagging on the exponential term does nothing with that integral since it's over dk). The problem can be solved directly from the Schroedinger's equation using ladder operators or using Legendre polynomials.

The energies of the quantum harmonic oscillator is:

E=(n+\frac{1}{2})\hbar\omega

I believe the wave function you provided corresponds to n=1 state...but there are some missing coefficients in front of the x squared term...so I'm not sure if it indeed is... You may want to check that.

Where \omega = \sqrt{\frac{k}{m}}

k is the spring constant as usual, and in your case it is 1.

You can obtain this by using ladder operators. This problem has been completely solved so I don't think I need to redo everything here. You can find information about this problem in the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

I don't understand your coupled oscillator, why is there a p_2 and x_2 term? Are there 2 particles in there?
 
Matterwave said:
Uhm...I don't think you need to worry about Fourier transforms for this problem (all you did was transform the function over to wave number space and then transform it back... tagging on the exponential term does nothing with that integral since it's over dk). The problem can be solved directly from the Schroedinger's equation using ladder operators or using Legendre polynomials.

The energies of the quantum harmonic oscillator is:

E=(n+\frac{1}{2})\hbar\omega

I believe the wave function you provided corresponds to n=1 state...but there are some missing coefficients in front of the x squared term...so I'm not sure if it indeed is... You may want to check that.

Where \omega = \sqrt{\frac{k}{m}}

k is the spring constant as usual, and in your case it is 1.

You can obtain this by using ladder operators. This problem has been completely solved so I don't think I need to redo everything here. You can find information about this problem in the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

I don't understand your coupled oscillator, why is there a p_2 and x_2 term? Are there 2 particles in there?

Yes. There are two particles.
 
Hmmm, sorry but I can't help you there. I haven't studied two particle systems yet.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
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...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top