Consider the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (or some equation in Schrödinger form) written down as $$ \tag 1 i \partial_{0} \Psi ~=~ \hat{ H}~ \Psi . $$ Usually, one likes to write that it has a formal solution of the form $$ \tag 2 \Psi (t) ~=~ \exp\left[-i \int \limits_{0}^{t} \hat{ H}(t^{\prime}) ~\mathrm dt^{\prime}\right]\Psi (0). $$ However, this form for the solution of $(1)$ is actually built by the method of successive approximations which actually returns a solution of the form $$ \tag 3 \Psi (t) ~=~ \hat{\mathrm T} \exp\left[-i \int \limits_{0}^{t} \hat{H}(t^{\prime})~\mathrm dt^{\prime}\right]\Psi (0), \qquad t>0, $$ where $\hat{\mathrm T}$ is the time-ordering operator.

It seems that $(3)$ doesn't coincide with $(2)$, but formally $(2)$ seems to be perfectly fine: it satisfies $(1)$ and the initial conditions. So where is the mistake?

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ (2) does not satisfy (1) as you can see if you carefully compute the derivative without assuming formal (and wrong for operators) arguments. It instead happens if $H(t)$ commutes with $H(t')$ for $t\neq t'$, but it is false in general! $\endgroup$ – Valter Moretti Mar 14 '14 at 23:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ↑ In particular, it is wrong to assume that $\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt}\exp(A(t))=\frac{\mathrm dA}{\mathrm dt}\exp(A(t))$. Instead, differentiating the series expansion results in $$\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{A(t)^n}{n!}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}\sum_{k=1}^nA(t)^{k-1}\frac{\mathrm dA}{\mathrm dt}(t)A(t)^{n-k},$$ and (unless $A(t)$ commutes with its derivative) in general there's not much one can do to simplify that expression. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Mar 11 '16 at 22:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Emilio Pisanty But you are assuming that the taylor series exist. Does taylor series exist for non-commuting hamilonian? $\endgroup$ – diff Jul 21 '16 at 10:23
  • $\begingroup$ @diff Why would the commutator $[A(t),\dot A(t)]$ have any effect on the existence of $\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac1{n!} A(t)^n$? In any case, the point was more limited - that the usual arguments for the differential equation break down for exponents that don't commute with their derivatives. If you don't like the series definition, provide a separate definition and the analogous argument will work there. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jul 21 '16 at 10:57
  • $\begingroup$ If you want a clearer counter-example, try $A(t)=i\lambda(\cos(t)\sigma_z +\sin(t)\sigma_x)$, for which $$\exp(A(t)) = \cos(\lambda)+i\cos(t)\sin(\lambda)\sigma_z+i\sin(t)\sin(\lambda)\sigma_x,$$ so $$\frac{d}{dt}\exp(A(t))=-i\sin(t)\sin(\lambda)\sigma_z+i\cos(t)\sin(\lambda) \sigma_x \tag1$$ but $\dot A(t)=i\lambda(-\sin(t)\sigma_z +\cos(t) \sigma_x)$ so $$\dot A(t) \exp(A(t))=-i\lambda\sin(t)\cos(\lambda)\sigma_z+i\lambda\cos(t)\cos(\lambda) \sigma_x -i\lambda\sin(\lambda)\sigma_y,\tag2$$ which is nothing like $(1)$. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jul 21 '16 at 12:41

I) The solution to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) is

$$ \Psi(t_2) ~=~ U(t_2,t_1) \Psi(t_1),\tag{A}$$

where the (anti)time-ordered exponentiated Hamiltonian

$$\begin{align} U(t_2,t_1)~&=~\left\{\begin{array}{rcl} T\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\! dt~H(t)\right] &\text{for}& t_1 ~<~t_2 \cr\cr AT\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\! dt~H(t)\right] &\text{for}& t_2 ~<~t_1 \end{array}\right.\cr\cr ~&=~\left\{\begin{array}{rcl} \lim_{N\to\infty} \exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}H(t_2)\frac{t_2-t_1}{N}\right] \cdots\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}H(t_1)\frac{t_2-t_1}{N}\right] &\text{for}& t_1 ~<~t_2 \cr\cr \lim_{N\to\infty} \exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}H(t_1)\frac{t_2-t_1}{N}\right] \cdots\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}H(t_2)\frac{t_2-t_1}{N}\right] &\text{for}& t_2 ~<~t_1 \end{array}\right.\end{align}\tag{B} $$

is formally the unitary evolution operator, which satisfies its own two TDSEs

$$ i\hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial t_2}U(t_2,t_1) ~=~H(t_2)U(t_2,t_1),\tag{C} $$ $$i\hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial t_1}U(t_2,t_1) ~=~-U(t_2,t_1)H(t_1),\tag{D} $$

along with the boundary condition

$$ U(t,t)~=~{\bf 1}.\tag{E}$$

II) The evolution operator $U(t_2,t_1)$ has the group-property

$$ U(t_3,t_1)~=~U(t_3,t_2)U(t_2,t_1). \tag{F}$$

The (anti)time-ordering in formula (B) is instrumental for the (anti)time-ordered expontial (B) to factorize according to the group-property (F).

III) The group property (F) plays an important role in the proof that formula (B) is a solution to the TDSE (C):

$$\begin{array}{ccc} \frac{U(t_2+\delta t,t_1) - U(t_2,t_1)}{\delta t} &\stackrel{(F)}{=}& \frac{U(t_2+\delta t,t_2) - {\bf 1} }{\delta t}U(t_2,t_1)\cr\cr \downarrow & &\downarrow\cr\cr \frac{\partial }{\partial t_2}U(t_2,t_1) && -\frac{i}{\hbar}H(t_2)U(t_2,t_1).\end{array}\tag{G}$$

Remark: Often the (anti)time-ordered exponential formula (B) does not make mathematical sense directly. In such cases, the TDSEs (C) and (D) along with boundary condition (E) should be viewed as the indirect/descriptive defining properties of the (anti)time-ordered exponential (B).

IV) If we define the unitary operator without the (anti)time-ordering in formula (B) as

$$ V(t_2,t_1)~=~\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\! dt~H(t)\right],\tag{H}$$

then the factorization (F) will in general not take place,

$$ V(t_3,t_1)~\neq~V(t_3,t_2)V(t_2,t_1). \tag{I}$$

There will in general appear extra contributions, cf. the BCH formula. Moreover, the unitary operator $V(t_2,t_1)$ will in general not satisfy the TDSEs (C) and (D). See also the example in section VII.

V) In the special (but common) case where the Hamiltonian $H$ does not depend explicitly on time, the time-ordering may be dropped. Then formulas (B) and (H) reduce to the same expression

$$ U(t_2,t_1)~=~\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\Delta t~H\right]~=~V(t_2,t_1), \qquad \Delta t ~:=~t_2-t_1.\tag{J}$$

VI) Emilio Pisanty advocates in a comment that it is interesting to differentiate eq. (H) w.r.t. $t_2$ directly. If we Taylor expand the exponential (H) to second order, we get

$$ \frac{\partial V(t_2,t_1)}{\partial t_2} ~=~-\frac{i}{\hbar}H(t_2) -\frac{1}{2\hbar^2} \left\{ H(t_2), \int_{t_1}^{t_2}\! dt~H(t) \right\}_{+} +\ldots,\tag{K} $$

where $\{ \cdot, \cdot\}_{+}$ denotes the anti-commutator. The problem is that we would like to have the operator $H(t_2)$ ordered to the left [in order to compare with the TDSE (C)]. But resolving the anti-commutator may in general produce un-wanted terms. Intuitively without the (anti)time-ordering in the exponential (H), the $t_2$-dependence is scattered all over the place, so when we differentiate w.r.t. $t_2$, we need afterwards to rearrange all the various contributions to the left, and that process generate non-zero terms that spoil the possibility to satisfy the TDSE (C). See also the example in section VII.

VII) Example. Let the Hamiltonian be just an external time-dependent source term

$$ H(t) ~=~ \overline{f(t)}a+f(t)a^{\dagger}, \qquad [a,a^{\dagger}]~=~\hbar{\bf 1},\tag{L}$$

where $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ is a function. Then according to Wick's Theorem

$$ T[H(t)H(t^{\prime})] ~=~ : H(t) H(t^{\prime}): ~+ ~C(t,t^{\prime}), \tag{M}$$

where the so-called contraction

$$ C(t,t^{\prime})~=~ \hbar\left(\theta(t-t^{\prime})\overline{f(t)}f(t^{\prime}) +\theta(t^{\prime}-t)\overline{f(t^{\prime})}f(t)\right) ~{\bf 1}\tag{N}$$

is a central element proportional to the identity operator. For more on Wick-type theorems, see also e.g. this, this, and this Phys.SE posts. (Let us for notational convenience assume that $t_1<t_2$ in the remainder of this answer.) Let

$$ A(t_2,t_1)~=~-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\! dt~H(t) ~=~-\frac{i}{\hbar}\overline{F(t_2,t_1)} a -\frac{i}{\hbar}F(t_2,t_1) a^{\dagger} ,\tag{O}$$


$$ F(t_2,t_1)~=~\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\! dt ~f(t). \tag{P}$$

Note that

$$ \frac{\partial }{\partial t_2}A(t_2,t_1)~=~-\frac{i}{\hbar}H(t_2), \qquad \frac{\partial }{\partial t_1}A(t_2,t_1)~=~\frac{i}{\hbar}H(t_1).\tag{Q} $$

Then the unitary operator (H) without (anti)time-order reads

$$\begin{align} V(t_2,t_1)~&=~e^{A(t_2,t_1)} \\ ~&=~\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}F(t_2,t_1) a^{\dagger}\right]\exp\left[\frac{-1}{2\hbar}|F(t_2,t_1)|^2\right]\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\overline{F(t_2,t_1)} a\right].\tag{R} \end{align}$$

Here the last expression in (R) displays the normal-ordered for of $V(t_2,t_1)$. It is a straightforward exercise to show that formula (R) does not satisfy TDSEs (C) and (D). Instead the correct unitary evolution operator is

$$\begin{align} U(t_2,t_1)~&\stackrel{(B)}{=}~T\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\! dt~H(t)\right] \\~&\stackrel{(M)}{=}~:\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\! dt~H(t)\right]:~ \exp\left[\frac{-1}{2\hbar^2}\iint_{[t_1,t_2]^2}\! dt~dt^{\prime}~C(t,t^{\prime})\right] \\ ~&=~ e^{A(t_2,t_1)+D(t_2,t_1)}~=~V(t_2,t_1)e^{D(t_2,t_1)}\tag{S}, \end{align}$$


$$ D(t_2,t_1)~=~\frac{{\bf 1}}{2\hbar}\iint_{[t_1,t_2]^2}\! dt~dt^{\prime}~{\rm sgn}(t^{\prime}-t)\overline{f(t)}f(t^{\prime})\tag{T}$$

is a central element proportional to the identity operator. Note that

$$\begin{align} \frac{\partial }{\partial t_2}D(t_2,t_1)~&=~\frac{{\bf 1}}{2\hbar}\left(\overline{F(t_2,t_1)}f(t_f)-\overline{f(t_2)}F(t_2,t_1)\right) \\ ~&=~\frac{1}{2}\left[ A(t_2,t_1), \frac{i}{\hbar}H(t_2)\right]~=~\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\partial }{\partial t_2}A(t_2,t_1), A(t_2,t_1)\right].\tag{U} \end{align}$$

One may use identity (U) to check directly that the operator (S) satisfy the TDSE (C).


  1. Sidney Coleman, QFT lecture notes, arXiv:1110.5013; p. 77.

The equation

$$\partial _{t}\psi (t)=-iH\psi (t)$$

acting in a Hilbert space with $H$ self-adjoint has the general solution

$$\psi (t)=\exp [-iH(t-t_{0})]\psi (t_{0}),$$

by Stone's theorem. In case $H=H(t)$ depends on $t$ matters change and time ordering becomes relevant. If $H$ does not depend on time your Eq. (3) reduces to (2).

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This is a terrible answer. Obviously the OP's (2) and (3) coincide for a time-independent hamiltonian; the OP's question isn't whether they're different when $H$ is time-dependent (which the OP is perfectly aware of) but why they're different. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jul 21 '16 at 12:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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