Random operator in heisenberg/schrödinger picture (heisenberg's equation of motion) [closed]

Consider a system whose hamiltonian isn't explicitly dependent on time. Let A be the operator for the eigenvalue a in the Schrödinger picture and $A_H=U^\dagger A U$ the corresponding operator in the Heisenberg picture, with $U=\exp(-\frac{iHt}{\hbar})$. Let the initial state $\left|\Psi (0)\right >$ be the eigenstate of A.

a) Show that $A_H(-t)\left|\Psi (t)\right >=a\left|\Psi(t)\right>$

b) Consider a one-dimensional (free of forces) motion of a particle of mass m. Solve Heisenberg's equation of motion

$\frac{dA_H(t)}{dt}=-\frac{i}{\hbar}[A_H(t),H]$

for the operators $X_H(t)$ and $P_H(t)$. The constraints are $X_H(0)=X$ and $P_H(0)=P$.

Here's what I got so far:

a): Since A is already the operator to the eigenvalue a in the Schrödinger picture, and I think this applies to $A_H$ in the Heisenberg picture as well (?), all I need to show is that $A_H(t)=A_H(-t)$, right? I thought since $U=\exp(-\frac{iHt}{\hbar})$ the '-' would only change it so that, $A_H=U A U^\dagger$ (the hermitian conjugate of U is now applied from the right instead from the left). But that's the same isn't it? Would that suffice as a solution?

b): First I took out the unitary operator from the commutator

$[A_H(t),H]=U[A,H]U^\dagger$.

Now, I could plug in X for A and H is simply $\frac{p^2}{2m}$ since it's free of forces. Now I just plug in $p=-i\hbar\partial_x$ and solve the commutator

$U(-i\hbar x\partial_x+i\hbar)U^\dagger$ (To be honest I don't know what happens when you apply the position operator on a derivative so I just left it there).

But I don't know how to continue from here.

Someone have any ideas? And is my approach in a) even correct?

closed as off-topic by yuggib, ACuriousMind♦, Gert, user36790, John RennieJun 24 '16 at 6:14

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – yuggib, ACuriousMind, Gert, Community, John Rennie
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Hint for a): $\psi(t)=U(t)\psi(0)$, and $A(-t)=U^*(-t)AU(-t)=U(t)A U^*(t)$ by definition of $U(t)$. Then $A(-t)\psi(t)=U(t) A U^*(t)U(t)\psi(0)$. What does $U^*(t)U(t)$ equals to? If you answer to that correctly, then it is trivial... Concerning b), you need to justify why you can take out the unitary operator $U(t)$ in the commutator (it is true only because this one has a special form); then you have simply to use the usual canonical commutation relations. – yuggib Jun 23 '16 at 10:00
• I don't understand the close votes. Sure it's an easy question if you know this stuff, but the OP is trying to learn it and has indeed shown his/her working and effort. – WetSavannaAnimal Jun 23 '16 at 13:13

Use User Yuggib's hint for part (a);

For part b), solve the equation of motion for $p$ first - it's really simple. For the equation of motion for $x$, as you realize, you need to find

$$[x,\,H] \propto [x,\,p^2]=x\,p\,p-p\,p\,x\tag{1}$$

Before you plug anything in, try bringing one of the terms into the same order as the other with the help of the CCR; it sounds as though this isn't something you've either come across or thought of:

$$x\,p\,p = (p\,x + [x,\,p])\,p = (p\,x + i\,\hbar\,\mathrm{id})\,p = p\,x \,p+ i\,\hbar\,p$$

Can you see where this is going? Do this trick again to re-order $p\,x\,p$ and then put the final results into (1). You'll find you'll get a very simple expression, especially in the light of your solution for $p$.

• Sorry for my late response. I wasn't at home for the last couple of hours. You and yuggib helped me a ton. I wouldn't have come up with the idea to use the CCR in this problem. Nice trick to remember. :). But just to be sure: $[x,p^2]=2i\hbar p$ and $[p,p^2]=0$, right? – Rab Jun 23 '16 at 19:05
• @Rab You've got it! That ordering trick is used a great deal in quantum optics and field theory too - one talks of Normal Ordering for raising and lowering operators. I'm really glad we could help! Sorry about the close votes; that kind of thing infuriates me. Enjoy physics and learning about our beautiful World. – WetSavannaAnimal Jun 23 '16 at 22:08