I Schrodinger equation and Heisenberg equation of motion

Josh1079
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
My question is that how does the Schrodinger equation arise from the Heisenberg equation of motion in the quantum field formalism.

blank.png

blank.png


These are from Hatfield's book. So I'm having some difficulties to reproduce (2.36) by plugging (2.55) into (2.37) primarily because H is an integral.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just use (2.54). Note that ##\hat{H}## is conserved in the Heisenberg picture, i.e., you can evaluate the integral at time ##t## (it doesn't depend on ##t## after all anyway). That's why you only need the canonical equal-time commutation relations (2.54).
 
Hi vanhees, great to see you again! Sorry I don't really follow you this time. I was also trying to use (2.54) and I guess I was stuck because I'm not familiar with an operator that is an integral.

So first of all, for the right side of (2.37) I'm not sure whether [H, \phi] = (\int dx \phi^* h \phi) \phi - \phi (\int dx \phi^* h \phi) or \int dx \phi^* h \phi \phi - \int \phi dx \phi^* h \phi, where h = -\frac{1}{2} \partial^2_x + V(x). Furthermore, when the operators are in the form h \phi \phi, is it equal to simply (h\phi) \phi or is it (h\phi)\phi + \phi (h\phi)?
 
Wait, I think I get something now.

Is it like this?

[H, \phi] = H\phi - \phi H = \int dx' \phi^*(x') h \phi(x') \phi(x) - \phi(x) \int dx' \phi^*(x') h \phi(x')
= \int dx' \phi^*(x') h \phi(x') \phi(x) - \int dx' \phi(x) \phi^*(x') h \phi(x')
the phi(x) can be taken inside the integral since it's independent of x', then by (2.54),
= \int dx' \phi^*(x') \phi(x) h \phi(x') - \int dx' \phi(x) \phi^*(x') h \phi(x') = \int \delta (x' - x) h \phi(x') dx' = h \phi(x)

Did I make any mistakes in the math?
 
Last edited:
I'm not familiar with your notation, and it's also good to write out the arguments. First of all you have
$$\hat{H}=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x \hat{\varphi}^*(t,x) \left (-\frac{1}{2} \Delta +V(x) \right) \hat{\varphi}(t,x).$$
Now ##\hat{H}## is not explicitly time dependent and that implies that it is conserved:
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \hat{H}=[\hat{H},\hat{H}]+\partial_t \hat{H}=0.$$
That implies that you can use any ##t## in evaluating ##\hat{H}## since ##\hat{H}## doesn't depend on it. Now you have
$$[\hat{H},\hat{\varphi}(t,x)]=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x' \left [\hat{\varphi}^*(t,x') \left (-\frac{1}{2} \Delta' +V(x') \right) \hat{\varphi}(t,x'),\hat {\varphi}(t,x) \right ].$$
Now you can just use the equal-time commutator relations given in #1 to show (2.37). You also need the general formula
$$[\hat{A},\hat{B} \hat{C}]=[\hat{A},\hat{C}] \hat{B}+\hat{C} [\hat{A},\hat{B}],$$
valid for any three operators ##\hat{A}##, ##\hat{B}##, and ##\hat{C}##.

It is allowed to use ##t## in the integral for ##\hat{H}## as the time argument of the fields since ##\hat{H}## doesn't depend on time as argued above, and that's why you can use the equal-time commutation relations to evaluate this commutator.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
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
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top