Unitary evolution while rapid change of potential?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of unitary evolution in quantum mechanics when a potential well undergoes an instantaneous change. Participants explore the nature of wavefunction density evolution during this transition and the associated concepts of time symmetry and causality in quantum theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a scenario where a potential well switches instantly and questions how the wavefunction density evolves during this transition, suggesting that unitary evolution should be time-symmetric.
  • Another participant argues against the necessity of time symmetry in the formal solution of the time-evolution equation, citing the time-ordering operator in the Schrödinger picture.
  • A different viewpoint is presented regarding the propagator, suggesting that performing it forward and backward in time yields different results, while referencing time-symmetric Feynman path integrals.
  • One participant asserts that quantum theory is not acausal, challenging the previous claims about time symmetry.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the complexity of causality in quantum mechanics, mentioning examples like Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and the CPT theorem, which imply some time symmetry.
  • A participant raises a question about the requirement of both the wavefunction and its conjugate in the context of the Vanhees71 equation.
  • Another participant discusses the relationship between the wavefunctions in the context of euclidean path integrals, noting that they may differ in cases of rapid potential changes.
  • One participant reiterates the complexity of causality in quantum mechanics and expresses reluctance to delve into metaphysical implications related to delayed-choice experiments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the time symmetry of unitary evolution and the implications of causality in quantum mechanics. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on these topics.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference complex topics such as the CPT theorem, delayed choice experiments, and the nature of wavefunction evolution, indicating that assumptions and definitions may vary among contributions.

jarekduda
Messages
82
Reaction score
5
Imagine potential well which in t=0 switches to a different potential well (instantly), like in the picture below.
So in negative times the wavefunction density should tend to be localized in the first well, in positive times to be localized in the second well.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/ehr.jpg

The question is what is density evolution of transition between these two wells?
Shouldn't unitary evolution be time-symmetric, so that the density prepares to the switch before it actually happens?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why should it be time symmetric? The formal solution of the time-evolution equation (here for the time evolution operator for the Schrödinger picture)
$$\hat{U}(t)=T_c \exp \left [-\mathrm{i} \int_0^t \mathrm{d} t' \hat{H}(t') \right],$$
which is not time-symmetric at all (##T_c## is the time-ordering operator, which orders operator products at different times such that they are ordered from right to left in terms of time arguments).
 
So try to perform the propagator you have written from -infinity to 0 (forward) and from +infinity to 0 (backward), you will get different answers.
Think about Feynman path integrals, it is time-symmetric.

The simulation from the picture above comes from (normalized) euclidean path integrals: (diffusion) assuming Boltzmann distribution among paths (fig. 5.1 here), which is time-symmetric diffusion (so called Bernstein process).
What is funny about it is that Ehrenfest equations lead to 2nd Newton law with opposite sign here: to prepare for the switch, the packet needs to first accelerate uphill, then decelerate downhill.
 
quantum theory is, however, by construction not acausal. So your claim cannot be right.
 
Hmm, the wavefunction may evolve as per Vanhees71 equation, but what about the conjugate? Don't we require both?
 
Indeed, at least from the point of view of euclidean path integrals,
rho(t,x) = < phi(t,x) | psi(t,x) >
where phi is a result of propagator from -infinity to t forward, psi from +infinity to t backward.
Usually phi=psi, unless for example a rapid change of potential like above.

Another example of phi != psi is conductance on a torus by assuming a gradient of potential: trajectories prefer circulation in a fixed direction (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/conductance.nb ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jarekduda said:
Could you elaborate on that?

Causality in quantum mechanics is a very complex topic, for example in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment or delayed choice quantum eraser.
And physicists generally believe that physics (QFT) is CPT symmetric (CPT theorem) - again suggesting some time symmetry of the discussed evolution ...
The delayed-choice experiments in no way invalidate the strict causality of QT, but that's another rather metaphysical topic, which I thus don't like to comment.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
19K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K