I Exact dynamics of spin in varying magnetic field

KDPhysics
Messages
73
Reaction score
24
TL;DR Summary
Can one use the Schrodinger picture propagator for a sudden, constant perturbation?
Consider an uncharged particle with spin one-half moving with speed ##v## in a region with magnetic field ##\textbf{B}=B\textbf{e}_z##. In a certain length ##L## of the particle's path, there is an additional, weak magnetic field ##\textbf{B}_\perp=B_\perp \textbf{e}_x##. Assuming the electron has magnetic moment ##\mu## then
$$
H(t) = H_0 + V(t)
$$
where ##H_0=-\mu B \sigma_z## and
$$
V(t)=\begin{cases}
-\mu B_\perp \sigma_x, \ \text{ for } 0<t<l/v\\
0, \ \text { otherwise}
\end{cases}
$$
Assuming the particle starts out in the ##|+\rangle## state (spin-up along the ##z##-axis) then I found using perturbation theory that the probability that the spin flips to ##|-\rangle## after time ##t>L/v## is
$$
P(t>L/v) = \bigg[\frac{B_\perp}{B}\sin\bigg(\frac{\mu B L}{\hbar v}\bigg)\bigg]^2
$$
I am wondering how I could derive the result without assuming that ##B_\perp\ll B##?

My first instinct was to use the propagator to evolve the state from ##t=0## to ##t=L/v##:
\begin{align}
&e^{-iH(t)t/\hbar} = e^{i\mu\textbf{B}\cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}t/\hbar} = \cos \bigg(\frac{\mu B't}{\hbar}\bigg)\mathbb{1}+i\sin \bigg(\frac{\mu B't}{\hbar}\bigg)\frac{B\sigma_z+B_\perp \sigma_z}{B'}\\
\implies & |+(t)\rangle = \cos \bigg(\frac{\mu B't}{\hbar}\bigg)|+\rangle+i\sin \bigg(\frac{\mu B't}{\hbar}\bigg)\frac{B|+\rangle+B_\perp |-\rangle}{B'}\\
\implies & |\langle-|+(t)\rangle|^2 = \bigg[\frac{B_\perp}{B'}\sin \bigg(\frac{\mu B't}{\hbar}\bigg)\bigg]^2
\end{align}
where ##B'=\sqrt{B^2+B_\perp^2}##. Taking the ##B_\perp/B<<1## limit (perturbative limit) then I recover
$$
P(t>L/v) = \bigg[\frac{B_\perp}{B}\sin\bigg(\frac{\mu B L}{\hbar v}\bigg)\bigg]^2
$$
as desired.

However, I'm not entirely sure if my approach of using the Schrödinger picture propagator ##U(t)=e^{-iHt/\hbar}## is correct. Indeed since ##H(t<0)## does not commute with ##H(t>0)##, there is no guarantee that the ##|+\rangle## state at time ##t=0^-## will not immediately jump and transition to some other state at ##t=0^+##, implying that assuming the state will be ##|+\rangle## at ##t=0^+## could be wrong. Why did my argument still yield the correct result?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems like I overlooked the simple fact that the state cannot change during a sudden, ##\textit{finite}## perturbation, so I was right in assuming that the spin would be ##|+\rangle## at ##t=0^+##.

To understand why the system's state must be continuous over the sudden perturbation in the Hamiltonian, we can write
\begin{cases}
i\hbar \frac{d}{dt}|\psi(t)\rangle = H_0 |\psi(t)\rangle, \ &t<0\\
i\hbar \frac{d}{dt}|\psi(t)\rangle = (H_0+V) |\psi(t)\rangle, \ &t>0
\end{cases}
Integrating from ##0^-=-\tau## to ##0^+=\tau## where ##\tau \rightarrow 0## then
$$
i\hbar(|\psi(\tau)\rangle-|\psi(-\tau)\rangle) = \int_{-\tau}^0 H_0 |\psi(t)\rangle \ dt + \int_0^\tau (H_0+V)|\psi(t)\rangle \ dt
$$
Since ##|\psi(t)\rangle## has to be continuous over ##(-\tau,0)## and ##(0,\tau)##, we can apply the Mean Value Theorem, which states that there must be some ##\tau_-\in(-\tau,0)## and some ##\tau_+\in(0,\tau)## such that
$$
\int_{-\tau}^0 H_0 |\psi(t)\rangle \ dt + \int_0^\tau (H_0+V)|\psi(t)\rangle \ dt = \tau (H_0|\psi(\tau_-)\rangle + (H_0+V)|\psi(\tau_+)\rangle)
$$
Taking the limit as ##\tau \rightarrow 0## we find that
$$
\lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0} (|\psi(\tau)\rangle-|\psi(-\tau)\rangle) = \frac{i}{\hbar}\lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0}\tau[H_0|\psi(\tau_-)\rangle + (H_0+V)|\psi(\tau_+)\rangle] = 0
$$
implying that ##|\psi(0^+)\rangle = |\psi(0^-)\rangle## (assuming ##V_0## is finite).
 
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
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Thread 'Lesser Green's function'
The lesser Green's function is defined as: $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\langle C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\rangle=i\bra{n}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\ket{n}$$ where ##\ket{n}## is the many particle ground state. $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{n}e^{iHt'}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(0)e^{-iHt'}e^{iHt}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ First consider the case t <t' Define, $$\ket{\alpha}=e^{-iH(t'-t)}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ $$\ket{\beta}=C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt'}\ket{n}$$ $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{\beta}\ket{\alpha}$$ ##\ket{\alpha}##...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
607
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
515
Replies
19
Views
4K
Back
Top