A Integration of Schrodinger equation

spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
I'm trying to integrate the Schrodinger equation ##i\hbar \frac{d}{dt} |\psi(t)\rangle = H |\psi(t)\rangle## with the initial condition ##|\psi(t_{0})\rangle=|\psi_{0}\rangle##

to show that ##|\psi(t)\rangle = \exp(\frac{t-t_{0}}{i\hbar}H)|\psi_{0}\rangle##.

I know how to plug in the solution into the Schrodinger equation and differentiate the LHS using the Taylor expansion of the exponential of the Hamiltonian operator in order to show that the two sides of the Schrodinger equation are equal.

However, what I'm looking for is an analog/generalisation of the separation of variables technique (used to integrate ordinary first-order differential equations) that works for operators. Can you help me out with it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
failexam said:
what I'm looking for is an analog/generalisation of the separation of variables technique
I am not sure how solving the above problem can connect to finding a generalization of the separation of variables technique.
 
The point of the Dirac formulation is that you don't need to choose a representation (which leads to "wave mechanics" or a mixture of "wave mechanics" and "matrix mechanics", depending on whether your choice of observables to choose the representation contains only observables with a continuous spectrum (e.g., the position or momentum representation of a spin-less particle) or some also having a discrete spectrum (e.g., the energy and orbital angular momentum of a spinless particle in a radial potential)).

The only choice you have to make is that of the picture of time evolution. Now, you've chosen the Schrödinger picture, were the full time dependence is on the states. For a representing state vector the equation reads, as you say in the OP,
$$\mathrm{i} \hbar \mathrm{d}_t |\psi(t) \rangle=\hat{H} |\psi(t),\rangle.$$
The only parameter here is time. So you have an ordinary differential equation for the state vector ##|\psi(t) \rangle##. If ##\hat{H}## is independent of time, then it's very easy to solve this equation formally to
$$|\psi(t) \rangle=\exp \left (-\frac{\mathrm{i} t}{\hbar} \hat{H} \right ) |\psi_0 \rangle,$$
where ##|\psi_0 \rangle=|\psi(t=0) \rangle## is the given initial state vector of the system.

This formal solution is only correct when ##\hat{H}## is not time dependent, because otherwise, you'd have to formally integrate over ##t##, and for a time-dpendent Hamiltonian ##\hat{H}(t_1)## and ##\hat{H}(t_2)## do not necessarily commute.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
Let's take ##\hbar=1##. Then you have:
##i\frac{d\psi}{dt}=H\psi##
The usual separation of variables technique is:
##i\frac{d\psi}{\psi}=Ht##
and integrate:
##i\int_{\psi_0}^{\psi}\frac{d\psi'}{\psi'}=H\int_{t_0}^tt'\longrightarrow\ln\frac{\psi}{\psi_0}=-iH(t-t_0)##
So finally:
##\psi(t)=\psi(t_0)e^{-iH(t-t_0)}##
as expected.
 
MBPTandDFT said:
Let's take ##\hbar=1##. Then you have:
##i\frac{d\psi}{dt}=H\psi##
The usual separation of variables technique is:
##i\frac{d\psi}{\psi}=Ht##
and integrate:
##i\int_{\psi_0}^{\psi}\frac{d\psi'}{\psi'}=H\int_{t_0}^tt'\longrightarrow\ln\frac{\psi}{\psi_0}=-iH(t-t_0)##
So finally:
##\psi(t)=\psi(t_0)e^{-iH(t-t_0)}##
as expected.
I wouldn't take a direct analogy between vector equation, which applies here, with the usual differential equation applied to functions. In the right side of the equation
$$
i\frac{d\psi}{dt}=H\psi
$$
##H## is an operator acting on a vector ##\psi##. You can imagine this as a square matrix acting on a column matrix. As you may have known, one cannot arbitrarily take a column matrix to the left of a matrix which was originally multiplied with, and then even further bring this column matrix to the denominator in the left hand side, ##i\frac{d\psi}{\psi}##.

In order to understand that the solution, especially the time dependency of the state, in the Schroedinger operator equation ##i\partial_t\psi = H\psi## is given by ##\psi(t) = \exp(iH(t-t_0))\psi(t_0)##, it's sufficient to understand that this form does satisfy the Schroedinger equation, i.e. when you plug it into Schroedinger equation, the left side matches the right side.

The usual separation of variable arise when you have projected the Schroedinger operator equation into a continuous basis, e.g. position or momentum basis. However, even with this method the solution you get is the normal modes (or eigenstates) of the corresponding Schroedinger equation.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
I agree. I would call it an heuristic derivation, and I would say it holds because H doesn't involve (besides doesn't depend on) time at all, and tha's a differential equation in time, if you close your eyes and don't look at the space-laplacian inside H that would prevent you from dividing by ##\psi##.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
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

Similar threads

Back
Top