Unitary time evolution - products of consecutive evolutions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the unitary time evolution of quantum states, particularly regarding the mathematical formulation and implications of evolving states over time. Participants explore the equivalence of different methods of time evolution and the conditions under which time evolution can be considered a unitary operation, touching on both time-independent and time-dependent Hamiltonians.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the process of evolving a quantum state from an initial time to a later time using two consecutive unitary operations and suggests that the results should be equivalent due to the homogeneity of time.
  • Another participant confirms the correctness of this description.
  • A participant questions whether demonstrating that time evolution preserves the inner product of a quantum state is sufficient to prove that the operation is unitary, referencing the Schrödinger equation.
  • Another participant responds that it is necessary to show preservation of the inner product of any two states, not just individual norms, to establish unitarity.
  • A participant proposes considering two different states that satisfy the Schrödinger equation to follow a similar proof procedure for unitarity.
  • A later reply suggests that for time-independent Hamiltonians, the unitary time evolution operator can be expressed as an exponential function of the Hamiltonian, reinforcing the unitary nature of the evolution.
  • Another participant acknowledges understanding the case of time-independent Hamiltonians but expresses interest in a more general approach that includes time-dependent Hamiltonians.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the basic principles of unitary time evolution and the necessity of preserving inner products. However, there is some debate regarding the sufficiency of different approaches to proving unitarity, particularly in the context of time-dependent Hamiltonians.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve assumptions about the nature of Hamiltonians (time-independent vs. time-dependent) and the implications for the unitary evolution operator, which may not be fully resolved.

"Don't panic!"
Messages
600
Reaction score
8
Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone could clarify my understanding of unitary time evolution of quantum states, in particular for products of time evolution's:

Suppose we know state of a quantum system at t=t_{0}, given by \vert\psi\left(t_{0}\right)\rangle, then to determine its state at a later time t=t_{2} we can first evolve the state from its configuration at t=t_{0} to its configuration at t=t_{1}, i.e \vert\psi\left(t_{1}\right)\rangle= U\left(t_{1},t_{0}\right)\vert\psi\left(t_{0}\right)\rangle
and then subsequently evolve this to its final state at t=t_{2} via a further time evolution, \vert\psi\left(t_{2}\right)\rangle= U\left(t_{2},t_{1}\right)\vert\psi \left(t_{1}\right)\rangle= U\left(t_{2},t_{1}\right)U \left(t_{1},t_{0}\right)\vert\psi\left(t_{0}\right)\rangle
Alternatively, we could immediately evolve the state from its initial configuration at t=t_{0} to its final state at t=t_{2} in the following manner, \vert\psi \left(t_{2}\right)\rangle= U\left(t_{2},t_{0}\right)\vert\psi \left(t_{0}\right)\rangle
Given that time is homogeneous (as far as we know), the results of these two evolution's of the system should be equivalent (as the path we take through time in evolving the state should not affect its initial and final configurations), this implies that U\left(t_{2},t_{0}\right)= U\left(t_{2},t_{1}\right)U\left(t_{1},t_{0}\right)

Is this a correct description?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes.
 
Ok, thanks.

On a related note, to prove that time evolution is a unitary operation is it enough to consider a inner product of a quantum state \vert \psi\left(t\right)\rangle that satisfies the Schrödinger equation (with \hbar=c=1) i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left(\vert \psi\left(t\right)\rangle\right) = \hat{H}\vert \psi\left(t\right)\rangle \rightarrow \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left(\vert \psi\left(t\right)\rangle\right)= -i\hat{H}\vert \psi\left(t\right)\rangle and then differentiate it with respect to time, such that \frac {\partial}{\partial t}\left(\langle \psi\left(t\right) \vert \psi\left(t\right)\rangle \right)=\frac {\partial}{\partial t}\left(\langle \psi\left(t\right) \vert\right) \vert \psi\left(t\right)\rangle + \langle \psi\left(t\right) \vert\frac {\partial}{\partial t}\left(\vert \psi\left(t\right)\rangle \right)= i\langle\psi \left(t\right)\vert\hat{H}^{\dagger} \vert\psi \left(t\right) \rangle - i\langle\psi \left(t\right)\vert\hat{H} \vert\psi \left(t\right) \rangle = 0
as \hat{H}^{\dagger} = \hat{H}. Hence, the inner product is preserved for all times, i.e. it is preserved under finite time evolution. As a result of this, if we consider a state at time t=t_{0}, \vert\psi \left(t_{0}\right)\rangle and its subsequent evolved state at some later time t, \vert\psi \left(t\right)\rangle=U \left(t,t_{0}\right) \vert\psi \left(t_{0}\right)\rangle, we then have that, \langle \psi \left(t\right)\vert\psi \left(t\right)\rangle= \langle \psi \left(t_{0}\right)\vert U^{\dagger} \left(t,t_{0}\right) U \left(t,t_{0}\right) \vert\psi \left(t_{0}\right)\rangle= \langle \psi \left(t_{0}\right)\vert\psi \left(t_{0}\right)\rangle which is true iff U^{\dagger} \left(t,t_{0}\right) U \left(t,t_{0}\right) = 1, i.e. U\left( t,t_{0}\right) must be a unitary operator?!

Sorry, I know this should probably be in a new thread, but I thought I'd try and combine the two questions as they are related.
 
Last edited:
To prove than an operation is unitary you need to show that the inner product of any two states is preserved. It's not enough to show that the norm of each individual state is preserved. There are operations that preserve the norm of all states but are not unitary.

So you need to consider a general inner product ##\langle \phi | \psi \rangle## in your proof. But actually it should go through in pretty much the same way.
 
Ah ok, so would it be fair to consider two different states, \vert\psi\left( t\right)\rangle and \vert\phi\left( t\right)\rangle which both satisfy the Schrödinger equation, i.e. i\frac{ \partial}{\partial t}\left( \vert\psi\left( t\right)\rangle\right)= \hat{H} \vert\psi\left( t\right)\rangle, \qquad i\frac{ \partial}{\partial t}\left( \vert\phi\left( t\right)\rangle\right)= \hat{H} \vert\phi\left( t\right)\rangle and then follow the same procedure from here as before?
 
Yes.
 
Cool. Thanks for the help guys, much appreciated!
 
A much easier way to see the same thing perhaps is to notice that the unitary time evolution operator for the Schroedinger equation is simply (for time independent Hamiltonians) ##U(t,t_0)=e^{iH(t-t_0)}##. Since the Hamiltonian is Hermitian, the the time evolution operator is unitary.
 
Yes, you're right. I understood it in that case, but was trying to go for a more general approach, including time-dependent Hamiltonians.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K