Heisenberg Equation: Solving the Poisson Brackets

  • Thread starter Calabi
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Heisenberg
In summary, in the Schrödinger picture, the operator represents a not explicitly time-dependent observable, and the state ket is time-independent. In the Heisenberg picture, the operator represents an explicitly time-dependent observable, and the state ket is time-dependent. The transformation between the two pictures is unitary.
  • #1
Calabi
140
2
Hello when I try to go form the Schrödinger picture to the Heisenberg picture I get this equality : [tex]
\begin{align}
{d \over dt} A(t)
= {i \over \hbar} H e^{iHt / \hbar} A e^{-iHt / \hbar} + e^{iHt / \hbar} \left(\frac{d A}{d t}\right) e^{-iHt / \hbar} + {i \over \hbar} e^{iHt / \hbar} A \cdot (-H) e^{-iHt / \hbar} \\
= {i \over \hbar} e^{iHt / \hbar} \left( H A - A H \right) e^{-iHt / \hbar} + e^{iHt / \hbar} \left(\frac{d A}{d t}\right) e^{-iHt / \hbar} \\
= {i \over \hbar } \left( H A(t) - A(t) H \right) + e^{iHt / \hbar} \left(\frac{d A}{d t}\right)e^{-iHt / \hbar} .
\end{align}[/tex]

I right [tex]A(t)[/tex] the Heisenberg picture of the operator(which depend of the time.). and [tex]A[/tex] the Schrödinger picture of the operator.

What permit me to say that : [tex]\frac{\partial A(t)}{\partial t} = e^{iHt / \hbar} \left(\frac{d A}{d t}\right)e^{-iHt / \hbar}[/tex] please?

I want to know if it's a Mathemtical definition or a physical definition.

Then I can say that with the classical Poisson brackets [tex]\{H, A\}[/tex] between the Hamiltonian and the Physical Quantity [tex]A[/tex] correspond to the [tex]\frac{i}{\hbar}[H, A][/tex] commutator between those 2 operator.

By the correspondance principle.

Thank you in advance and have a nice afternoon:biggrin:.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
So what do you think please?

Thank you in advance and have a nice afternoon:biggrin:.
 
  • #3
So could someone help me please? I really need to have an answer please please please.

Thank you in advance and have a nice afternoon:biggrin:.
 
  • #4
dA/dt is zero because you are in the Schroedinger picture -- the time dependence is carried by the exp(iHt) and exp(-iHt) terms.
 
  • #5
Let's look at it more carefully. For simplicity we assume that we have a non-explicitly time-dependent Hamiltonian. Now we consider two pictures of time evolution, namely the Schrödinger and the Heisenberg picture. It is of utmost importance to clearly distinguish all mathematical objects in the two pictures. One must never mix two pictures when evaluating physically observable quantities.

The Schrödinger picture is defined such that observables which are not explicitly time-dependent are also time-independent in the mathematical description, and the entire time evolution is on the states, which we can without loss of generality assume as pure states described by normalized Hilbert-space vectors. The time dependence of any self-adjoint operator ##\hat{O}_S(t)##, representing a not explicitly time-dependent observable, and the state ket ##|\psi_S(t) \rangle## in the Schrödinger picture thus is
$$\hat{O}_S(t)=\hat{O}_s(0)=\text{const}, \quad |\psi_S(t) \rangle=\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) |\psi_S(0) \rangle.$$
I've chosen ##t=0## as the initial time, and set ##\hbar=1##.

In the Heisenberg picture the operators representing observables carry the full time dependence, i.e.,
$$\hat{O}_H(t)=\exp(\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) \hat{O}_H(0) \exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t), \quad |\psi_H(t) \rangle=|\psi_H(0) \rangle=\text{const}.$$
The transformation between the two pictures is unitary. We can easily find this transformation with the above definitions of the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures. Without loss of generality we can assume that both pictures coincide at ##t=0##. If this is not the case, there must be a time-independent unitary transformation of operators and kets to achieve this. So we can assume
$$\hat{O}_H(0)=\hat{O}_S(0), \quad |\psi_S(0) \rangle=|\psi_H(0) \rangle.$$
Then we have
$$|\psi_S(t) \rangle=\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) |\psi_S(0) \rangle = \exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) |\psi_H(0) \rangle = \exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) |\psi_H(t) \rangle.$$
Thus the unitary transformation is
$$\hat{U}_{SH}(t)=\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t).$$
Now we have to check that this is consistent with the corresponding transformation for the operators:
$$\hat{O}_S(t)=\hat{O}_S(0)=\hat{O}_H(0)=\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) \hat{O}_H(t) \exp(\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) = \hat{U}_{SH}(t) \hat{O}_H(t) \hat{U}_{SH}^{\dagger}(t),$$
which indeed shows the consistency between the transformation of the operators that represent observables with the transformation of the state kets.
 

Related to Heisenberg Equation: Solving the Poisson Brackets

What is the Heisenberg equation?

The Heisenberg equation is a mathematical tool used in quantum mechanics to describe how physical quantities, such as position and momentum, change over time. It is based on the principle of using Poisson brackets to calculate the rate of change.

What are Poisson brackets?

Poisson brackets are a mathematical notation used to represent the commutator of two variables in quantum mechanics. They are defined as the difference between the product of the two variables and the product of their respective canonical conjugates.

How do you solve the Heisenberg equation?

To solve the Heisenberg equation, you must first write the equation in terms of Poisson brackets. Then, you can use the properties of Poisson brackets, such as the Jacobi identity, to simplify the equation and solve for the desired variable.

What is the significance of solving the Heisenberg equation?

Solving the Heisenberg equation allows us to determine the time evolution of quantum mechanical observables. This is important in understanding how particles behave and interact in the quantum world.

Can the Heisenberg equation be applied to classical mechanics?

No, the Heisenberg equation is specific to quantum mechanics and cannot be applied to classical mechanics. In classical mechanics, the time evolution of observables is described by the Hamiltonian equations, which are analogous to the Heisenberg equation but use Poisson brackets instead of commutators.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
687
Replies
24
Views
884
Replies
2
Views
673
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
879
Replies
7
Views
736
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
725
Replies
3
Views
605
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top