When we want to find the equation of motion of the density matrix, we use the property :

$$\frac{d}{dt} \langle \psi | = \left(\frac{d}{dt} | \psi \rangle \right)^{\dagger} $$

Said differently, the time derivative and the hermitian conjugate "commute".

We use it in the proof about equation of motion for the density matrix :

$$ \frac{d}{dt} (| \psi \rangle \langle \psi |) = \frac{H}{ih} | \psi \rangle \langle \psi | - | \psi \rangle \langle \psi | \frac{H}{ih}$$

But I don't understand why it is true from math point of view.

I see "intuitively" why it is true when I have a column vector that I transpose, to make the derivative before or after the transposition won't change the result.

But is there a more formal proof using some properties on Hermitian scalar product ? I am looking for such a thing.

  • $\begingroup$ To assemble such a proof, you might start by producing an eigenbasis of the time derivative operator. $\endgroup$ – probably_someone Feb 20 '18 at 18:09

Formally we have $$ \left( \frac{d}{dt}| \psi(t) \rangle\right)^{\dagger} ~=~\left(\lim_{t^{\prime} \to t} \frac{ | \psi(t^{\prime}) \rangle - | \psi(t) \rangle}{t^{\prime}-t}\right)^{\dagger} ~=~\lim_{t^{\prime} \to t} \frac{ | \psi(t^{\prime}) \rangle^{\dagger} - | \psi(t) \rangle ^{\dagger}}{t^{\prime}-t}$$ $$~=~\lim_{t^{\prime} \to t} \frac{ \langle \psi(t^{\prime}) | - \langle \psi(t) |}{t^{\prime}-t} ~=~\frac{d}{dt}\langle \psi(t) |. $$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Nice, do we need any conditions on the second equality (existence of the derivative?) or does conjugation always commute with limiting? $\endgroup$ – Alec Rhea Feb 20 '18 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ Conjugation $\dagger :{\cal H}\to {\cal H}^{\ast}\cong {\cal H}$ is an anti-linear isometry between Hilbert spaces, and hence continuous, so that it commutes with limiting. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Feb 21 '18 at 9:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But $\mathcal{H}\cong\mathcal{H}^*$ only holds in the finite dimensional case or the bounded infinite dimensional case; are those requirements necessary? $\endgroup$ – Alec Rhea Feb 21 '18 at 12:12

Let's see if this argument is good enough. Pick a basis of time-independent states $\left\{|\psi_i\rangle\right\}$. I think you can at least allow me to write \begin{equation} \left[ \frac{d}{dt} \left( \langle \phi| \psi_i \rangle \right)\right]^* = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \langle \phi| \psi_i \rangle^* \right) \, , \end{equation} being this just the derivative of a $\mathbb{C}$ number.

With that given, we have \begin{eqnarray} \left[ \left(\frac{d}{dt}\langle \phi| \right) | \psi_i \rangle \right]^* &=& \left[ \frac{d}{dt} \left( \langle \phi| \psi_i \rangle \right)\right]^* = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \langle \phi| \psi_i \rangle^* \right) = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \langle \psi_i | \phi \rangle \right) \\ &=& \langle \psi_i |\left( \frac{d}{dt} | \phi \rangle \right) = \left[ \left( \frac{d}{dt} | \phi \rangle \right)^{\dagger} | \psi_i \rangle\right]^* \, , \end{eqnarray} where in the last step we just used the definition of adjoint. This being valid for all $|\psi_i \rangle$, we can conclude we have found the adjoint we were looking for.

| cite | improve this answer | |

The bra-ket notation can muddy the issue somewhat. You want to know why, for some $\psi$,

$$\frac{d}{dt} \psi^\dagger = \big(\frac{d}{dt}\psi\big)^\dagger$$

Note that

$$\frac{d}{dt}\psi^\dagger := \lim_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0} \frac{\psi^\dagger(t+\Delta t) - \psi^\dagger(t)}{\Delta t}$$

But of course, since $\Delta t$ is a real number,

$$ \frac{\psi^\dagger(t+\Delta t) - \psi^\dagger(t)}{\Delta t} = \left(\frac{\psi(t+\Delta t) - \psi(t)}{\Delta t}\right)^\dagger $$

(ignoring subtleties like domain compatibility and such which is generally ignored in most physics contexts).

To address the comments by OP:

Let $$ \lim_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0} \frac{A(t+\Delta t)-A(t)}{\Delta t} = A'(t)$$

This means that for all $\epsilon >0$, there exists some $\delta>0$ such that $$ |\Delta t|<\delta \implies \big\Vert\frac{A(t+\Delta t)-A(t)}{\Delta t} - A'(t) \big\Vert < \epsilon$$

where $\Vert \cdot \Vert$ is the operator norm. However, the operator norm of an operator $O$ is equal to the operator norm of $O^\dagger$, and since the adjoint operation distributes over addition and multiplication by real numbers, it immediately follows that

$$ |\Delta t|<\delta \implies \big\Vert\frac{A^\dagger(t+\Delta t)-A^\dagger(t)}{\Delta t} - [A'(t)]^\dagger \big\Vert < \epsilon$$

which is another way of saying that

$$ \frac{d}{dt}A^\dagger \equiv \lim_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0} \frac{A^\dagger(t+\Delta t)-A^\dagger(t)}{\Delta t} = [A'(t)]^\dagger \equiv \left[\frac{d}{dt}A\right]^\dagger$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I tried to do this but here you use the fact you can intervet the limit and the dagger. How do we know we can do this ? $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Feb 20 '18 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ That's a reasonable question, and the answer depends on how deeply you want to go. The operator norm of some operator $A$ is equal to the operator norm of $A^\dagger$ - you can use this fact to demonstrate that if you have a sequence of operators $\{a_n\}$ which converges to $A$, then the sequence $\{a_n^\dagger\}$ converges to $A^\dagger$, and take the limit that way. $\endgroup$ – J. Murray Feb 20 '18 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ @StarBucK I've added to my answer to justify the exchange of the limit and the adjoint operation. $\endgroup$ – J. Murray Feb 20 '18 at 20:35

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.