Deducing the solution of the von Neumann equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the von Neumann equation, specifically the time evolution of the density operator \(\hat{\rho}(t)\). The solution is identified as \(\hat{\rho}(t) = \hat{U} \hat{\rho}(0) \hat{U}^{+}\), with questions raised about the reasoning behind using the time evolution operator in this form. Verification of the solution is attempted, leading to inquiries about the necessity of the time evolution operator versus other operators. The definition of the von Neumann density operator is also mentioned, with an exploration of how to derive the time derivative of \(\hat{\rho}\) using it. The source for a more detailed explanation of these concepts is provided, referencing a specific textbook on open quantum systems.
xyver
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


\hat{\rho}(t)=? <br /> |\psi(t)\rangle=U(t,t_{0})|\psi(t_{0})\rangle <br /> \imath\hbar\partial_{t}\hat{p}=[\hat{H},\hat{\rho}] <br />

Homework Equations


<br /> \imath\hbar\partial_{t}\hat{p}=[\hat{H},\hat{\rho}] \Leftrightarrow\imath\hbar\partial_{t}\hat{p}=\hat{H}\hat{\rho}-\hat{\rho}\hat{H}<br />

The Attempt at a Solution



I already know the solution: \hat{\rho}(t)=\hat{U}\hat{\rho}(0)\hat{U}^{+}
But where do I get this from? How do I know that I have to write the time evolution operator multiplied once in front of the density operator and once the Hermitian conjugate after it?

Also, I tried to verify the solution:
\Rightarrow\imath\hbar\partial_{t}\hat{U}\hat{\rho}(0)\hat{U}^{+}=\hat{H}\hat{U}\hat{\rho}(0)\hat{U}^{+}-\hat{U}\hat{\rho}(0)\hat{U}^{+}\hat{H}=[H,\hat{\rho}(t)]
Can't I take any other operator instead of the time evolution operator at this place, since in my attempt to verify the solution the \hat{U} goes away again?

Or is this just guessing as one way to solve a differential equation. Then, still, how do you get the idea?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why don't you use the definition of the von Neumann density operator ?
 
The definition should be \hat{\rho}=\sum_{i}p_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\langle\psi(t)|
I can do with that:
\partial_{t}\hat{\rho}=\partial_{t}\sum_{i}p_{n}| \psi(t)\rangle\langle\psi(t)|+ \sum_{i} p_{n}|\psi(t) \rangle\partial_{t}\langle\psi(t)| \Leftrightarrow<br /> <br /> \partial_{t}\hat{\rho}=\frac{1}{\imath\hbar}Hp_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\langle\psi(t)|+\sum_{i}p_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\frac{1}{\imath\hbar}H\langle\psi(t)| \Leftrightarrow<br /> \partial_{t}\hat{\rho}=\frac{1}{\imath\hbar}\hat{H}p_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\langle\psi(t)|+\frac{1}{ \imath\hbar}\sum_{i}p_{n}|\psi(t)\rangle\langle \psi(t)\hat{H}|
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top