Differentiation of an exponential with operators (Peskin p.84)

gremezd
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know how to differentiate an exponential, which has an operator in its power? I found it quite a trouble in Peskin's QFT (page 84, formulas (4.17), (4.18)).
Here we have these two formulas of Peskin:

U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) }e^{-iH\left( t-t_{0}\right) };
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) }\left( H-H_{0}\right) e^{-iH\left( t-t_{0}\right) }.

I agree with this. However, if we write U\left( t,t_{0}\right) as U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{i\left( H_{0}-H\right) \left( t-t_{0}\right) }, then

i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=\left( H-H_{0}\right)e^{i\left( H_{0}-H\right) \left( t-t_{0}\right) }

and we cannot transport e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) } to the left of \left( H-H_{0}\right) so easily to obtain Peskin's result, since, according to my calculations, \left[ H,H_{0}\right]\neq0. Do we have a rule, which explains where to put the operators from the exponential after differentiation, when we have several noncummuting operators in the power of exponential?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gremezd said:
Does anyone know how to differentiate an exponential, which has an operator in its power? I found it quite a trouble in Peskin's QFT (page 84, formulas (4.17), (4.18)).
Here we have these two formulas of Peskin:

U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) }e^{-iH\left( t-t_{0}\right) };
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) }\left( H-H_{0}\right) e^{-iH\left( t-t_{0}\right) }.

I agree with this. However, if we write U\left( t,t_{0}\right) as U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=e^{i\left( H_{0}-H\right) \left( t-t_{0}\right) }, then
But you can't write this since H and H_0 don't commute. e^A e^B = e^{A+B} only when A and B commute. Otherwise you have to use the Campbell-Hausdorf formula.
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}U\left( t,t_{0}\right)=\left( H-H_{0}\right)e^{i\left( H_{0}-H\right) \left( t-t_{0}\right) }

and we cannot transport e^{iH_{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) } to the left of \left( H-H_{0}\right) so easily to obtain Peskin's result, since, according to my calculations, \left[ H,H_{0}\right]\neq0. Do we have a rule, which explains where to put the operators from the exponential after differentiation, when we have several noncummuting operators in the power of exponential?
You just differentiate as usual, making sure that you never pass an operator "through" another operator that does not commute with it.
 
Thanks a lot! This has been tormenting me for ages!
 
Thank you, nrqed, for pointing out my mistake. I appreciate it :)
 
gremezd said:
Thank you, nrqed, for pointing out my mistake. I appreciate it :)

:smile: You are very very welcome.

And thank you for posting your question since this apparently helped Wasia too!

Patrick
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
This is still a great mystery, Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance" But science and mathematics are full of concepts which at first cause great bafflement but in due course are just accepted. In the case of Quantum Mechanics this gave rise to the saying "Shut up and calculate". In other words, don't try to "understand it" just accept that the mathematics works. The square root of minus one is another example - it does not exist and yet electrical engineers use it to do...

Similar threads

Back
Top