1
$\begingroup$

In deriving a general propagator to the time-dependent ($H = H(t)$) Hamiltonian problem, Shankar works to first order in $\Delta = T/N$ (a small time interval for large $N$) and argues that by integrating the Schrodinger Equation over the interval $\Delta$ we get:

$$|\psi(\Delta)\rangle \approx |\psi(0)\rangle + \Delta \frac{d}{dt}|\psi(0)\bigg|_{t=0} = |\psi(0)\rangle - \frac{i\Delta}{\hbar}H(0)|\psi(0)\rangle = \left(1-\frac{i\Delta}{\hbar}H(0)\right)|\psi(0)\rangle \approx e^{-i\Delta H(0)/\hbar}|\psi(0)\rangle.$$

Then by integrating over each individual interval of width $\Delta = T/N$ gives:

$$|psi(t)\rangle = \prod_{n=0}^{N-1}\exp[-\frac{i\Delta}{\hbar}H(n\Delta)]|\psi(0)\rangle.$$

So far, I'm on board. However, he says that we can't simply turn the product into a sum in the exponent and take a limit as $N \rightarrow \infty$, get a nice integral representation and call it day. He says we can't do this $[H(t_1), H(t_2)] \neq 0$ so by Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff there will be additional terms. However, in the limit as $N \rightarrow \infty$ and so $\Delta \rightarrow 0$, can we not say that each $H(n\Delta)$ will commute with its neighbor $H((n+1)\Delta)$, and so argue that the integral representation is valid?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Let's call the evolution operator $U(t_2, t_1)$ for convenience.

It is true that when $\Delta \rightarrow 0$, $$ U(t + \Delta, t) \sim e^{- i \hbar^{-1} \Delta H}. $$

It is also true, like you noted, that $$ \lim_{\Delta \rightarrow 0} \left[ U(t + 2 \Delta, t + \Delta); U(t + \Delta, t) \right] = 0. $$

However, there will be terms proportional to $\Delta$ in the commutator: $$ \left[ U(t + 2 \Delta, t + \Delta); U(t + \Delta, t) \right] = A(t) \Delta + \mathcal{O}(\Delta^2). $$

Now imagine "collapsing" the string of exponentials using BCH. You will pick up $$ e^{A(t) \Delta} $$ every time you collapse two neighboring exponentials into one. You will have $N$ such terms, all of them with a different $A(t)$.

The product of these terms is (with further corrections coming from BCH, which are $\mathcal{O}(\Delta^2)$) $$ e^{\sum A(t) \Delta} \sim e^{A (t_2 - t_1)}, $$ where I assumed that all $A(t)$ are of the same order. This does not go to $1$ in the $\Delta \rightarrow 0$ limit.

Now this may be an illustration of a fallacy in your argument, but it is by no means a proof of anything. The actual proof comes from comparing the answer you would get if you assumed noncommutativity doesn't influence the outcome to the right answer. The right answer is

$$ U(t_2, t_1) = \mathcal{T} \exp \left( -i \hbar^{-1} \intop_{t_1}^{t_2} H(t) dt \right), $$

while you would get a similar formula with an ordinary exponential instead of the time-ordered one. These are demonstrably different operators.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.