Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We start with the familiar Schrodinger equation: $$ i\hbar \frac{\partial \left|\psi_S\right\rangle}{\partial t} = \hat{H}_S \left|\psi_S\right\rangle $$

As we switch to a different picture than Schrodinger picture with a unitary transformation $\hat U$:

$$ \left|\psi_S\right\rangle = \hat{U}\left|\psi_P\right\rangle $$($S$ indicating Schrodinger picture and $P$ indicating the arbitrary picture) If we plug in $\left|\psi_S\right\rangle = \hat{U}\left|\psi_P\right\rangle$ into the Schrodinger equation, we obtain:

$$ i\hbar \frac{\partial \left|\psi_P\right\rangle}{\partial t} = \hat{H}_P \left|\psi_P\right\rangle $$ where $$ \hat{H}_P = U^\dagger \hat{H_S} U - i\hbar U^\dagger \frac{\partial U}{\partial t} $$ is the Hamiltonian in this arbitrary picture.

So, the question is - if Hamiltonian is an observable, shouldn't it have the same expectation values in both pictures - yet the second term in $\hat H_P$ makes them unequal. Because:

$$ \left\langle\psi_P\right|\hat{H}_P\left|\psi_P\right\rangle = \left\langle\psi_P\right| U^\dagger \hat{H_S} U \left|\psi_P\right\rangle - i\hbar \left\langle\psi_P\right| U^\dagger \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}\left|\psi_P\right\rangle $$ this simplifies to: $$ \left\langle\psi_P\right|\hat{H}_P\left|\psi_P\right\rangle = \left\langle\psi_S\right| \hat{H_S} \left|\psi_S\right\rangle - i\hbar \left\langle\psi_P\right| U^\dagger \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}\left|\psi_P\right\rangle $$ telling us that the expectation values in two different pictures are not the same. I do not see a reason why that the last term should be zero. What is wrong here? Is Hamiltonian somewhat different from other observables?

share|cite|improve this question
The definition of $H_p$ in op's post is not physically motivated for me. Take Heisenberg picture for instance, which the state vector is stationary. Thus $$ i \partial | \psi_p \rangle / \partial t = 0 $$, thus $H_p =0$.... We know the motivated (or common) definition is $$H_p := U^{\dagger} H_s U$$ – user26143 Apr 24 '14 at 7:37
Here is an explicit example of this kind of transformation, the questions therein(question 3 and 1) is very similar to this post, hope it can help someone and me to understand this kind of situation better. – buzhidao Apr 24 '14 at 11:41

It is only in the Schroedinger picture (and those connected to it by time-independent $U$) that the Hamiltonian can be read off from the dynamical equation for $\vert\psi\rangle$. In all other pictures you would find there a kind of "effective Hamiltonian" which is different from the actual Hamiltonian in this picture. So $$\hat{H}_P = U^\dagger \hat{H}_S U$$ is the Hamiltonian in P and $$\hat{H}_{P,eff} = U^\dagger \hat{H}_S U - i \hbar U^\dagger \partial_t U$$ is the one you read off from $$i\hbar \partial_t\vert\psi_P\rangle = \hat{H}_{P,eff}\vert\psi_P\rangle.$$

Now it becomes clear that $\langle\psi_P\vert\hat{H}_P\vert\psi_P\rangle=\langle\psi_S\vert\hat{H}_S\vert\psi_S\rangle\neq\langle\psi_P\vert\hat{H}_{P,eff}\vert\psi_P\rangle$ in general.

For instance, in the Heisenberg picture ($P\to H$) we have $$\hat{H}_H = \hat{H}_S$$ but $$\hat{H}_{H,eff} = 0.$$

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.