3,592 reputation
1824
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years
seen 11 hours ago

20h
reviewed Reject Simple question relating to physics prac reports
Apr
15
reviewed Reject Why taking components of a component of a vector is invalid?
Apr
12
reviewed Reject Solving a Non-Isentropic rankine Cycle
Apr
12
reviewed Reject High school student interested in a career in physics
Apr
11
reviewed Reject Time that we have changing color
Apr
10
reviewed Approve The interaction between waves and particles according to their wavelength
Apr
9
reviewed Approve What's the interpretation of Feynman's picture proof of Noether's Theorem?
Apr
9
reviewed Reject Electric flux of a point charge in 2D
Apr
6
reviewed Reject Lagrangian of Schrodinger field
Mar
30
reviewed Reject If I switch on a generator connected to an open circuit, are the charges oscillating along wires?
Mar
30
accepted Is the Wikipedia version of the Heisenberg equation of motion correct?
Mar
29
comment Is the Wikipedia version of the Heisenberg equation of motion correct?
Your edit is very helpful, thanks. Note: it turns out I introduced a sign error in the commutator of the equation I was trying to copy from Wikipedia. It's now fixed, but my typo may have leaked into your answer.
Mar
29
comment Is the Wikipedia version of the Heisenberg equation of motion correct?
Thank you. I'm having trouble distinguishing your answer from yuggib's edit (which has time priority). Is the $t$ vs. $t'$ distinction important? Also, in your last equation, do you mean the full (convective?) time derivative instead of the partial derivative?
Mar
29
comment Is the Wikipedia version of the Heisenberg equation of motion correct?
1) I agree that $dA_H/dt \ne (dA_S/dt)_H$, but I wrote the partial derivative wrt t, $\partial A_H/\partial t=(dA_S/dt)_H$, not the full derivative. In your example, I think the partial derivative applied to $A_H$ would only act on the explicit time dependence ($t^2$), not on $x_H^2$ or $p_H^2$, hence the equality I proposed. 2) My goal is education, not amusement. I don't know if I'm being too picky.
Mar
28
comment Is the Wikipedia version of the Heisenberg equation of motion correct?
@AndrewLedesma, Groan... Thank you. Fixed.
Mar
28
revised Is the Wikipedia version of the Heisenberg equation of motion correct?
Fix commutator order.
Mar
27
awarded  Yearling
Mar
27
comment Is the Wikipedia version of the Heisenberg equation of motion correct?
Thank you for this answer. Unfortunately, I'm a bit confused by it. 1) On the one hand, your "true" equation looks the same as mine, and different from Wikipedia's. 2) On the other, in your example, it looks like $\partial A_H / \partial t = (dA_S/dt)_H $, which would validate the interpretation that you said "did not really make sense to write". In fact, if this equality holds in general, I would have to concede Wikipedia has it right. Thoughts?
Mar
27
comment Is the Wikipedia version of the Heisenberg equation of motion correct?
Thank you for this answer. I certainly have no problems with the classical equation of motion; it's as rigorous as physics gets, I think. For the quantum version, I've only seen derivations that start with the Schrodinger picture; your "direct replacement" procedure is intriguing. Forgive my skepticism, but do you have any references for it? Thanks.
Mar
26
asked Is the Wikipedia version of the Heisenberg equation of motion correct?