Understanding Unitary Operator Evolution in Quantum Mechanics

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KFC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the unitary evolution operator in quantum mechanics, specifically comparing two expressions for the operator: one for time-independent Hamiltonians and another for time-dependent Hamiltonians. Participants explore the implications of these expressions in various contexts, including specific Hamiltonians that incorporate delta functions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the unitary evolution operator as U = exp(-i H/\hbar) for time-independent Hamiltonians, while another provides the expression U = exp(-i ∫ H(t) dt / ħ) for time-dependent cases.
  • Another participant suggests that the first expression is correct for time-independent Hamiltonians and notes that the second expression is valid only if H(t) commutes with H(t') for all times.
  • A specific Hamiltonian example is introduced, H(t) = p²/(2m) + sin(x)[δ(t-3) + δ(t+3)], prompting a question about the commutation of H(t) and H(t').
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of the Hamiltonian, with one participant questioning its origin and what physical scenario it describes.
  • Another participant clarifies that the Hamiltonian represents a kicking system, where a potential is applied at specific times, indicating its application in certain physical contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the two expressions for the unitary evolution operator. There is no consensus on the implications of the time-dependent Hamiltonian example, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of commutation and the interpretation of the Hamiltonian.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves complex mathematical expressions and assumptions about the behavior of Hamiltonians over time. There are unresolved questions regarding the commutation of time-dependent Hamiltonians and the specific physical interpretation of the introduced Hamiltonian.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Hi there,
I am reading a book in which the unitary evolution operator is
[tex]U = \exp(-i H/\hbar)[/tex]

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

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,
[tex]\frac{\mathrm{d} \hat{U}}{\mathrm{d} t}=-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \hat{H} \hat{U}.[/tex]
Since [itex]\hat{H}[/itex] 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 [itex]\hat{U}(0)=1[/itex], you get
[tex]\hat{U}(t)=\exp \left (-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \hat{H} t \right).[/tex]
The second equation is usually not generally correct. It only holds, if [itex]\hat{H}(t)[/itex] commutes with [itex]\hat{H}(t')[/itex] for any two times [itex]t,t'[/itex]. The correct solution for the equation in this case is
[tex]\hat{U}(t)=\mathcal{T}_c \exp \left (-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \int_0^t \mathrm{d} t' \hat{H}(t') \right ),[/tex]
where [itex]\mathcal{T}_c[/itex] 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 [tex]H(t) = p^2/(2m) + \sin(x)[\delta(t-3) + \delta(t+3)][/tex]
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,
[tex]\frac{\mathrm{d} \hat{U}}{\mathrm{d} t}=-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \hat{H} \hat{U}.[/tex]
Since [itex]\hat{H}[/itex] 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 [itex]\hat{U}(0)=1[/itex], you get
[tex]\hat{U}(t)=\exp \left (-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \hat{H} t \right).[/tex]
The second equation is usually not generally correct. It only holds, if [itex]\hat{H}(t)[/itex] commutes with [itex]\hat{H}(t')[/itex] for any two times [itex]t,t'[/itex]. The correct solution for the equation in this case is
[tex]\hat{U}(t)=\mathcal{T}_c \exp \left (-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} \int_0^t \mathrm{d} t' \hat{H}(t') \right ),[/tex]
where [itex]\mathcal{T}_c[/itex] 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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K