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.)


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 $t$.


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.


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.


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 $t$.


For those doing homework and - like me - have their heads spinning about Schrodinger vs. Heisenberg pictures, and consequently have lost sight of the basic principles which got your here, recall there is a difference between the evolution of expectation values and the evolution of operators.

$$\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = 0$$

the operator $x$ does not evolve with time in Schrodinger picture. As it relates to the original question which started this thread, in the Heisenberg picture however, $x$ would be represented with evolution operators tacked on either side of it, each of which have explicit dependence on time. Hence, what I believe Wikipedia meant by "transformed operator" relates to the "picture" it is represented in.


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.