Understanding Unitary Operator Evolution in Quantum Mechanics

  • Thread starter Thread starter KFC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator
Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies the correct forms of the unitary evolution operator in quantum mechanics. The first expression, U = exp(-i H/\hbar), is valid for time-independent Hamiltonians and is derived from the Schrödinger equation. The second expression, U = exp(-i ∫ H(t) dt / \hbar), is applicable only when the Hamiltonian at different times commutes, necessitating the use of a time-ordering operator for time-dependent cases. A specific Hamiltonian example involving delta functions is presented, prompting questions about its commutation properties. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the context and conditions under which each expression is valid.
KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Hi there,
I am reading a book in which the unitary evolution operator is
U = \exp(-i H/\hbar)

where H is the given Hamiltonian. But in another book, I found that the evolution operator is general given as
U = \exp(-i \int H(t) dt / \hbar)

which one is correct and why there are two expression? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first expression has a typo, but it applies to time-independent Hamilton operators. It solves the operator equation for the time-evolution operator of states in the Schrödinger picture,
\frac{\mathrm{d} \hat{U}}{\mathrm{d} t}=-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \hat{H} \hat{U}.
Since \hat{H} is time-independent it trivially always commutes with itself at any instant of time, and you can formally integrate this equation as if you had a usual differential equation. Together with the initial condition \hat{U}(0)=1, you get
\hat{U}(t)=\exp \left (-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \hat{H} t \right).
The second equation is usually not generally correct. It only holds, if \hat{H}(t) commutes with \hat{H}(t') for any two times t,t'. The correct solution for the equation in this case is
\hat{U}(t)=\mathcal{T}_c \exp \left (-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \int_0^t \mathrm{d} t' \hat{H}(t') \right ),
where \mathcal{T}_c is the time-ordering operator. For a detailed explanation and derivation of the formula, see

http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf

page 16. Don't worry that this is a script on quantum-field theory. The first chapter is a summary of usual non-realtivistic quantum mechanics.
 
Thanks vanhees. Suppose the Hamiltonian is somethings like H(t) = p^2/(2m) + \sin(x)[\delta(t-3) + \delta(t+3)]
where p is the momentum, x is the spatial variable, t is the time, so Hamiltonian is time-dependent so I should use the intergral form of evolution operator, right?

But in this case, how do I check H(t) and H(t') commutes or not? The delta function looks complicated to me.

vanhees71 said:
The first expression has a typo, but it applies to time-independent Hamilton operators. It solves the operator equation for the time-evolution operator of states in the Schrödinger picture,
\frac{\mathrm{d} \hat{U}}{\mathrm{d} t}=-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \hat{H} \hat{U}.
Since \hat{H} is time-independent it trivially always commutes with itself at any instant of time, and you can formally integrate this equation as if you had a usual differential equation. Together with the initial condition \hat{U}(0)=1, you get
\hat{U}(t)=\exp \left (-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \hat{H} t \right).
The second equation is usually not generally correct. It only holds, if \hat{H}(t) commutes with \hat{H}(t') for any two times t,t'. The correct solution for the equation in this case is
\hat{U}(t)=\mathcal{T}_c \exp \left (-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \int_0^t \mathrm{d} t' \hat{H}(t') \right ),
where \mathcal{T}_c is the time-ordering operator. For a detailed explanation and derivation of the formula, see

http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf

page 16. Don't worry that this is a script on quantum-field theory. The first chapter is a summary of usual non-realtivistic quantum mechanics.
 
Where does such a strange Hamiltonian come from? What should it describe? It's pretty strange to say the least!
 
vanhees71 said:
Where does such a strange Hamiltonian come from? What should it describe? It's pretty strange to say the least!

That's for kicking system. It is used for a kicking at time is t=3 and t=-3. For each kicking time, a potential sin(x) is applied
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
740
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K