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

For an observable $A$ and a Hamiltonian $H$, Wikipedia gives the time evolution equation for $A(t) = e^{iHt/\hbar} A e^{-iHt/\hbar}$ in the Heisenberg picture as

$$\frac{d}{dt} A(t) = \frac{i}{\hbar} [H, A] + \frac{\partial A}{\partial t}.$$

From their derivation it sure looks like $\frac{\partial A}{\partial t}$ is supposed to be the derivative of the original operator $A$ with respect to $t$ and $\frac{d}{dt} A(t)$ is the derivative of the transformed operator. However, the Wikipedia derivation then goes on to say that $\frac{\partial A}{\partial t}$ is the derivative with respect to time of the transformed operator. But if that's true, then what does $\frac{d}{dt} A(t)$ mean? Or is that just a mistake?

(I need to know which term to get rid of if $A$ is time-independent in the Schrodinger picture. I think it's $\frac{\partial A}{\partial t}$ but you can never be too sure of these things.)

share|cite|improve this question
@Qiaochu Yuan: Please link to the Wikipedia page, so we can improve the Wikipedia page if needed. – Qmechanic Jun 19 '11 at 13:55
@Qmechanic: thanks! It looks like the general issue is that we want to differentiate functions of time and other variables which are themselves functions of time. But here $A$, as an operator, is only (possibly) a function of time, yes? – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 19 '11 at 13:58
@Qiaochu Yuan: Often, $\hat{A}(t)= \sum_r\sum_{i's} f_{i_1,\ldots i_r}(t) ~\hat{z}^{i_1}(t)\ldots \hat{z}^{i_r}(t)$, where $\hat{z}^{i}(t)$ are the fundamental phase space operators (positions and momenta). Explicit differentiation means differentiation of the $f_i$ coefficient functions. – Qmechanic Jun 19 '11 at 14:21
@Qiaochu Yuan: The relation $\hat{A}(t)=e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}{\hat{H}}t}\hat{A}(0)e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat{H}t}$ is only true if $\hat{H}$ and $\hat{A}(t)$ do not depend explicitly on time $t$. (Here and above I have only addressed the Heisenberg picture.) – Qmechanic Jun 19 '11 at 16:11
up vote 8 down vote accepted

There is no mistake on the Wikipedia page and all the equations and statements are consistent with each other. In $$A_{\rm Heis.}(t) = e^{iHt/\hbar} A e^{-iHt/\hbar}$$ the letter $A$ in the middle of the product represents the Schrödinger picture operator $A = A_{\rm Schr.}$ that is not evolving with time because in the Schrödinger picture, the dynamical evolution is guaranteed by the evolution of the state vector $|\psi\rangle$.

However, this doesn't mean that the time derivative $dA_{\rm Schr.}/dt=0$. Instead, we have $$ \frac{dA_{\rm Schr.}}{dt} = \frac{\partial A_{\rm Schr.}}{\partial t} $$ Here, $A_{\rm Schr.}$ is meant to be a function of $x_i, p_j$, and $t$. In most cases, there is no dependence of the Schrödinger picture operators on $t$ - which we call an "explicit dependence" - but it is possible to consider a more general case in which this explicit dependence does exist (some terms in the energy, e.g. the electrostatic energy in an external field, may be naturally time-dependent).

In Schrödinger's picture, $dx_{i,\rm Schr.}/dt=0$ and $dp_{j,\rm Schr.}/dt=0$ which is why the total derivative of $A_{\rm Schr.}$ with respect to time is given just by the partial derivative with respect to time. Imagine, for example, $$ A_{\rm Schr.}(t) = c_1 x^2 + c_2 p^2 + c_3 (t) (xp+px) $$ We would have $$ \frac{dA_{\rm Schr.}(t)}{dt} = \frac{\partial c_3(t)}{\partial t} (xp+px).$$ These Schrödinger's picture operators are called "untransformed" on that Wikipedia page. The transformed ones are the Heisenberg picture operators given by $$A_{\rm Heis.}(t) = e^{iHt/\hbar} A_{\rm Schr.}(t) e^{-iHt/\hbar}$$ Their time derivative, $dA_{\rm Heis.}(t)/dt$, is more complicated. An easy differentiation gives exactly the formula involving $[H,A_{\rm Heis.}]$ that you quoted as well. $$\frac{d}{dt} A_{\rm Heis.}(t) = \frac{i}{\hbar} [H, A_{\rm Heis.}(t)] + \frac{\partial A_{\rm Heis.}(t)}{\partial t}.$$ The two terms in the commutator arise from the $t$-derivatives of the two exponentials in the formula for the Heisenberg $A_{\rm Heis.}(t)$ while the partial derivative arises from $dA_{\rm Schr.}/dt$ we have always had. (These simple equations remain this simple even for a time-dependent $A_{\rm Schr.}$; however, we have to assume that the total $H$ is time-independent, otherwise all the equations would get more complicated.) The two exponentials on both sides never disappear by any kind of derivative, so obviously, all the appearances of $A$ in the differential equation above are $A_{\rm Heis.}$. The displayed equation above is the (only) dynamical equation for the Heisenberg picture so it is self-contained and doesn't include any objects from other pictures.

In the Heisenberg picture, it is no longer the case that $dx_{\rm Heis.}(t)/dt=0$ (not!) and the similar identity fails for $p_{\rm Heis.}(t)$ as well. $A_{\rm Heis.}(t)$ is a general function of all the basic operators $x_{i,\rm Heis.}(t)$ and $p_{j,\rm Heis.}(t)$, as well as time $t$.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is terrible notation (on the part of the math / physics community as a whole, not this answer in particular). So if I'm reading this answer correctly, $\frac{\partial A}{\partial t}$ really means $\frac{\partial A_{\text{Schr}}(x, p, t)}{\partial t}$ (keeping $x$ and $p$ constant) whereas $\frac{d}{dt} A(t)$ means $\frac{d}{dt} \left( e^{iHt/\hbar} A_{\text{Schr}}(x(t), p(t), t) e^{-iHt/\hbar} \right)$? – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 19 '11 at 15:21
You make it sound contrived but there is nothing contrived about it. If $A_{Heis}(t) = e.A_{Schr}.e$, then obviously $d A_{Heis}(t)/dt = d(e.A_{Schr}.e)/dt$. This is called substitution and I am sure that most mathematicians would agree that this is true. Obviously, when we use symbols, we must know what they mean. The Wikipedia page assumes that the reader knows which $A(t)$ is the Schr. picture and which one is the Heis. picture. I just made this distinction more explicit. But when people know what the symbols mean, the notation of derivatives is unambiguous and standard. – Luboš Motl Jun 19 '11 at 15:52
@Qiaochu Yuan: The point is that implicit and explicit dependences change their meaning when going back and forth between Schroedinger and Heisenberg picture because the basic operators get changed as well. – Qmechanic Jun 19 '11 at 15:52
Just to be sure, in the equation $dA/dt = i/\hbar [H,A] +\partial A/\partial t$, all the symbols $A$ are obviously still $A_{Heis}$, including one in the last term. This whole equation is in Heisenberg picture - it is the dynamical equation determining the time evolution of all of physics in the Heisenberg picture so of course that it cannot rely on other pictures. – Luboš Motl Jun 19 '11 at 15:53
Dear Qiaochu, even if $A_{Heis}$ meant nothing else, we still wrote its "definition" in terms of $A_{Schr}$, by the conjugation, so it is definitely not an undefined object. It is totally well-defined - if you decide that the conjugation is its definition - and all questions about it may be answered by pure thought. Yes, it is true that $\partial x_{Heis} / \partial t = 0$ and similarly for $p_{Heis}$. However, $dx_{Heis}/dt$ is not zero, and neither is $dp_{Heis}/dt$. – Luboš Motl Jun 19 '11 at 16:12

It's easiest to derive this from the Schrödinger picture:

Let $B(t)$ be a time-dependent operator in the Schrödinger picture. The corresponding operator in the Heisenberg picture is $A(t) = e^{iHt/\hbar} B(t) e^{-iHt/\hbar}$. Differentiation with respect to $t$ gives

$$ \frac{d}{dt} A(t) = e^{iHt/\hbar} \left(\frac{i}{\hbar} H B(t) + \frac{\partial}{\partial t}B(t) - \frac{i}{\hbar} B(t) H) \right) e^{-iHt/\hbar} $$ $$ = e^{iHt/\hbar} \left(\frac{i}{\hbar} [H,B(t)] + \frac{\partial}{\partial t}B(t)\right) e^{-iHt/\hbar} = \frac{i}{\hbar} [H,A(t)] + \frac{\partial A}{\partial t} $$

In other words, the last partial derivative is to be understood in the sense that you take the operator $\frac{\partial B}{\partial t}$ and "evolve it in time" via the Schrödinger equation.

Useful non-example: the velocity operator $\vec v$. The velocity operator is the derivative of the position operator, but it's the total derivative as the system evolves. Hence,

$$ \vec v = \frac{i}{\hbar} [H,\vec r] .$$

In the Schrödinger picture, the position operator is, of course, time independent. Since $H$ is time independent as well, this is also the right velocity operator in the Schrödinger picture.

share|cite|improve this answer

The Heisenberg picture is defined as

$$A_{\mathrm{H}}(t) = e^{iHt/\hbar} A_{\mathrm{S}}(t) e^{-iHt/\hbar}$$

differentiating both sides we obtain

$$i\hbar \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} A_{\mathrm{H}}(t) = [ A_{\mathrm{H}}(t), H] + i\hbar \left( \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} A_{\mathrm{S}}(t) \right)_{\mathrm{H}} \>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\> (1)$$

Some textbooks rewrite the last term using the notation [*]

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} A_{\mathrm{H}}(t) \equiv \left( \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} A_{\mathrm{S}}(t) \right)_{\mathrm{H}}$$

[*] I agree on that this notation is awkward for mathematicians (it is not a true partial derivative) and the more rigorous physics textbooks use (1) with the total time derivative.

share|cite|improve this answer

As always in the Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics, whether classical or quantum, $$\partial A\over\partial t$$ means the way $A$ varies explicitly in time simply from the occurrence of $t$ explicitly in its formula.

But some of the other parts of the formula of $A$ might change with time also, thus contributing something to the total change in $A$ as time goes by, notated $$dA\over dt.$$

This is the same as the notation in the chain rule in several variables where $df=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx + \frac{\partial f}{\partial t}dt$. The differential on the Left Hand Side is the « total differential » $df$ but it is the sum of two terms, only one of which is the explicit dependence of $f$ on $t$.

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.