0
$\begingroup$

In Quantum Mechanics, a state vector $|\psi\rangle$ will evolve in time according to $$|\psi(t)\rangle=e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat H t}|\psi(0)\rangle$$ Imagine we have a system such that, for a short period of time $T$, the Hamiltonian increases by a constant and then returns to normal, such that $$\hat H=\hat H_0+ \begin{cases} 0 & \text{($t\lt0,\, t\gt T$)}\\ A & \text{($0\leq t\leq T$)}\\ \end{cases} $$ At $t=T$ we will have $$|\psi(T)\rangle=e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}AT}e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat H_0T}|\psi(0)\rangle$$ Now, following the first equation, since after $t=T$ there is no $A$, it should just become $$|\psi(t)\rangle=e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat H_0 t}|\psi(0)\rangle$$ But this seems strange, it's as if that period of interaction with whatever caused the extra energy had no effect on the particle whatsoever. I think it makes more sense to apply the time evolution operator separately and obtain $$|\psi(t)\rangle=\hat U(t-T)|\psi(T)\rangle=e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat H_0(t-T)}e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}AT}e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat H_0T}|\psi(0)\rangle=e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat H_0t}e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}AT}|\psi(0)\rangle$$ Is my idea wrong or is the time evolutikon operator different in this case? If so, the what would be the case for a time-dependent Hamiltonian?

$\endgroup$
2

1 Answer 1

-2
$\begingroup$

Your first equation does not hold for a time dependent Hamiltonian.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Is my idea wrong ... in this case? If so, then what would be the case for a time-dependent Hamiltonian?" $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2018 at 3:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Read the question carefully. What, specifically, is the question asking for? Make sure your answer provides that – or a viable alternative. The answer can be “don’t do that”, but it should also include “try this instead”. Any answer that gets the asker going in the right direction is helpful, but do try to mention any limitations, assumptions or simplifications in your answer. Brevity is acceptable, but fuller explanations are better. " $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2018 at 4:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ All votes are subjective. Based on the entire section you reference (not just part of a sentence) I believe the answer could be better with barely any additional effort. Hence the -1. It's not personal, I just don't think it's a sufficient answer. My first comment was to let you know why do I didn't just leave you wondering why someone gave you a down vote. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2018 at 4:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Unfortunately as written now this post is not an answer but a comment. Methinks it should be developed but with so little details it’s not super useful, although as a comment it is entirely correct, $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2018 at 4:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is silly. You may be technically right in the narrow sense so take your win if you want, but it would still benefit from being expanded, although this would repeat an answer posted in a duplicate to the original question. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2018 at 4:58

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