Time partial derivative of a wave function

NeroKid
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
the probability of finding particle is a constant with time <ψ|\partialψ/\partial(t)> = -<\partialψ/\partial(t)|ψ> , the equation holds for all ψ so the time derivative operator is an anti-hermitian operator, but then consider any hermitian operator A, the rate of change of A is d(<ψ|Aψ>)/dt = <\partialψ/\partial(t)|Aψ>+<ψ|\partial(Aψ)/\partial(t)> , interchange the anti hermitian operator for the first one the equation equals to 0 which means every observable is conserved in all situation and it's clearly wrong, so where did I think wrong? Please show me
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What your derivation is trying to say is that the time derivative of the expectation value of an observable in an arbitray pure state is time independent iff the commutator between the hamiltonian and the observable in that pure state is 0, thing which is a pretty standard result of the theory.
 
yes but that is what after you change frome time derivative to hamiltonian , what i was trying to say is that because the time derivative is anti-hermitian it has the form < f|Ag> = - <Af|g> so any observable is conserved
 
NeroKid,
In your attempt to prove that time derivative is an anti-hermitian operator on the Hilbert space, you tacitly take for granted that time derivative is at least an operator on the Hilbert space. However, that is wrong. The time derivative is not an operator on the Hilbert space. This is because states in the Hilbert space are functions of x, not functions of x and t. The parameter t is an external parameter, not associated with the Hilbert space.

If you are still confused, try to work out your argument with x instead of t. Do you see a difference?
 
Last edited:
ok I see now tks a lot
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top