Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm currently consuming a course on QFT where we need to define the unitary time-evolution to get the time evolution of the wave function in the interaction picture:

$\hat{U}(t_1,t_0) = \exp\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat{H}_0t_1\right)\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat{H}(t_1-t_0)\right)\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat{H}_0t_0\right)$ .

Now one can show that this operator follows a Schrödinger equation by simply taking the derivative to time:

$i\hbar\frac{d}{dt}\hat{U}(t,t_0) = \hat{H}_1^I(t)\hat{U}(t,t_0)$ .

Where $\hat{H}_1^I$ is the perturbation to our free-field Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_0$.

Now I started wondering whether $\hat{U}(t_1,t_0)$ shouldn't also follow a Heisenberg equation since it's an operator.

I believe it shouldn't since $\hat{U}(t_1,t_0)$ gives a unitairy time-evolution which is a transformation, while the Heisenberg equation applies to observables. I was woundering if someone could confirm my reasoning or disprove it?

share|improve this question
    
If $t_1$ and $t_0$ are constants, then $\hat{U}(t_1,t_0)$ is the operator evaluated at those particular instants, not a function. Think about the function $\sin(x)$ and the function evaluated at $x_0$ $\sin(x)|_{x=x_0}=\sin(x_0)$ –  Jorge Jun 24 '13 at 14:30
    
Yes but if I were to take $t_1$ as my variable, then it might follow some equation governing the time-evolution. That it follows Schrödinger can be proven. For the Heisenberg-case this doesn't work (I wouldn't know how to take the commutator of $\hat{H_1^I}$ and $\hat{H_0}$). My reasoning for this is that the Heisenberg-equation only applies to observables, not the transformation (what the $\hat{U}(t_1,t_0)$ in principle is. –  Nick Jun 24 '13 at 14:54

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Yes, OP is right. The Heisenberg evolution equation in the interaction picture applies to an operator $A_I(t)$, that depends on a single moment of time $t$. On the other hand, the evolution operator $\hat{U}(t_f,t_i)$ depends in principle on the whole intermediate time interval $[t_i,t_f]$, and is in particular not a local operator of a single time.

share|improve this answer
    
Ok, that might explain my conceptual problems upon trying to derive the Heisenberg-like equation. Thanks! Now I was woundering if it was purely because of the fact that $\hat{U}(t_f,t_i)$ is depending on the interval $[t_i,t_f]$. Or also because of the fact that it is a transformation and Heisenberg doesn't apply to transformations ? –  Nick Jun 24 '13 at 15:20
1  
@Nick: Well, I'm not sure what class of transformations you allow, but a sufficiently well-behaved local transformation operator that is only associated with a single time should satisfy the Heisenberg evolution equation. –  Qmechanic Jun 24 '13 at 15:41
    
Okay, thanks a lot! –  Nick Jun 24 '13 at 15:47
    
@Nick: An other way to see that is that the evolution operator have to be expressed as a time ordered function of the perturbation hamiltonian. –  Trimok Jun 24 '13 at 17:00
1  
@Nick : Yes. Be careful, it is a partial derivative. (Minor remark : if you want your message appears in the mail box of somebody, you have to do a @ (for instance @Trimok). Sometimes it is automatic, but not in this case.) –  Trimok Jun 25 '13 at 18:21

Your Answer

 
discard

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.