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".

  • $\begingroup$ Note that $\hbar$ is a number, $\hat{H}$ is an operator. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Nov 8 '14 at 15:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But $\frac{\hat{H}}{\hbar}\neq\hat{H}$, so it isn't equivalent. $\endgroup$ – theage Nov 8 '14 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ True, but what is $\hbar|\psi(t)\rangle$ vs $\hat{H}|\psi(t)\rangle$? $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Nov 8 '14 at 15:40

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.)

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Cantor is spinning in his grave! $\endgroup$ – CStarAlgebra Jul 2 '15 at 18:25

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.