3
$\begingroup$

A fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, as far as I can tell, states that the Hamiltonian generates time evolution. A common result about generators are the following: let $\mathrm T$ be the Hermitian generator of $\mathrm U(\tau)$, then we have

$$i\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\mathrm U\vert\psi\rangle = \mathrm T\vert\psi\rangle$$

If $\mathrm H$ generates $\mathrm U(t)$ (specifically time evolution this time) then, writing for the evolved state $\vert\psi'\rangle=\mathrm U\vert\psi\rangle$:

$$i\frac{\partial\vert\psi'\rangle}{\partial t} = \mathrm H\vert\psi\rangle$$ and we've lost an $\hbar$ from the real TDSE. Does this then actually imply that time evolution is generated by $\frac{\mathrm H}{\hbar}$? I ask only because I've heard from multiple places the exact statement "the Hamiltonian generates time evolution".

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Note that $\hbar$ is a number, $\hat{H}$ is an operator. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Nov 8, 2014 at 15:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But $\frac{\hat{H}}{\hbar}\neq\hat{H}$, so it isn't equivalent. $\endgroup$
    – theage
    Commented Nov 8, 2014 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ True, but what is $\hbar|\psi(t)\rangle$ vs $\hat{H}|\psi(t)\rangle$? $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Nov 8, 2014 at 15:40

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Yes, you need to put in an extra factor of $\hbar$ to get the units to work out. This is easily seen since, if an operator $T$ generates evolution in a parameter $\tau$, the corresponding evolution operator is $e^{iT\tau}$, so $T\tau$ must be unitless. When $\tau$ is time then $T$ has to be $H/\hbar$.

This is a quirk of language usage that you'll have to get used to; when people say "the Hamiltonian generates time evolution" they are using "the Hamiltonian" to mean something proportional to the Hamiltonian, $aH$ for some nonzero constant $a$ (in this case, $a = 1/\hbar$). This is not unreasonable because rescaling the Hamiltonian by a constant doesn't change the solutions to the equations of motion, so you can consider the equivalence class $\{aH\ \forall\ a\neq 0\}$ to be "the Hamiltonian." (Apologies to the mathematicians for my horrible misuse of set notation, but the point should be clear.)

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Cantor is spinning in his grave! $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 2, 2015 at 18:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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