0
$\begingroup$

Trying to obtaining the Heisenberg EOM ( "for $\vec{\sigma}$" ) for the following Hamiltonian

$$ H = - \mu \vec{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma} $$ where the magnetic field $\vec{B}$ is generic for now, $\vec{B}=\{B_x,B_y,B_z\}$, and $\vec{\sigma}$ is the Pauli vector (of Pauli matrices).

The Heisenberg EOM reads

$$ \frac{d}{dt} A(t)_H = \frac{i}{\hbar} [H,A(t)_H] + (\frac{\partial A_H}{\partial t})_H $$

The (well my professor's, and so I would like to mimic her style as she's brilliant) solutions to the problem we got after trying this for HW last week makes a step that I am confused about:

enter image description here

Why is the operator $\vec{\sigma}$ not transformed to the Heisenberg picture? Ought we to first send

$$ \vec{\sigma} \rightarrow \vec{\sigma}_H=e^{\frac{it}{\hbar}H}\vec{\sigma}e^{\frac{-it}{\hbar}H} $$

My only thought is that my professor already did so! See the following work from a similar problem I found on the web. The Hamiltonian in this work's case is more specific,

$$ H=-B \sigma_x $$

In this case, using Mathematica enables us to show that for the case of $\sigma_x$,

$$ (\sigma_x)_H = e^{\frac{it}{\hbar}H} \sigma_x e^{\frac{-it}{\hbar}H} = \sigma_x $$

The following code verifies it:

MatrixForm[Simplify[MatrixExp[i t/h PauliMatrix[1]].PauliMatrix[1].MatrixExp[-i t/h PauliMatrix[1] ]]]

Now... if I define my generic Hamiltonian:

enter image description here

where I use the Pauli vector now for the more generic Hamiltonian instead of one of the matrices like the example above... the same formula for $(\sigma_x)_H$ is .... disturbing.

Can someone point out my mistake (computational or conceptual) and point me to how I can show $\vec{\sigma}_H=\vec{\sigma}$

Edit: [Incorrect!]

I was thinking about the following but it is still a complete (or/nor coded correctly) idea

enter image description here

Edit based on @ZeroTheHero's Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula insight

using this form of the BCH formula (eq 3 here)

$$ e^A B e^{-A} = B + [A,B] + 1/2[A,[A,B]] + ... $$

shouldn't I be able to say

$\begin{eqnarray*} (\vec{\sigma})_H &=& e^{\frac{it}{\hbar}H} \vec{\sigma} e^{\frac{-it}{\hbar}H} \\ &=& \vec{\sigma} + [H,\vec{\sigma}] + ... \\ &=& \vec{\sigma} -\mu [\vec{B} \cdot \vec{\sigma},\vec{\sigma}] ... \\ &=& \vec{\sigma}- \mu \vec{B} [\vec{\sigma},\vec{\sigma}] + ... \\ &=& \vec{\sigma}+ 0 \\ &=& \vec{\sigma} \end{eqnarray*}$

This seems correct to me, but if so, the result $[H,\vec{\sigma}]=0$ reduced the Heisenberg EOM to

$$ \frac{d}{dt} \vec{\sigma} = 0 $$

which I know to be false... :/

My thoughts at the moment is that my $[H,\vec{\sigma}]$ is wrong based on my professor's calculation above where she does NOT factor out the constant $\vec{B}$. I was motivated to factor out based on this Stack answer.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Please don’t post scans of math. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Sep 11 at 22:24
  • $\begingroup$ Linked. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Sep 12 at 11:30
4
$\begingroup$

Clearly $\exp(\hat A)\hat A\exp(-\hat A)=\hat A$ by Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff. Here, set $\hat A=\hat H=-it\mu\vec B\cdot \vec \sigma/\hbar$.

Note that \begin{align} \exp(-i t\mu \vec B\cdot \vec \sigma/\hbar)\ne \exp(-it B_x\sigma_x)\exp(-it B_y\sigma_y)\exp(-it B_z\sigma_z) \end{align} or any other kind of factorization suggested by your snippet of Mma code since in general $\exp(A+B)\ne \exp(A)\exp(B)$. The correct implementation would be to compute $-it\mu\vec B\cdot\vec \sigma/\hbar$ as a single matrix and then exponential this single matrix.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, thank you for the BCH hint! That is a beautiful way to go able this and thus use the commutation relations of the Pauli matrices. Thank you :) $\endgroup$ – Lopey Tall Sep 12 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ sorry for the Tex error in the above comment, sent the comment and immediately went to something else and Stack has a 5 minute edit window :/ $\endgroup$ – Lopey Tall Sep 12 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ @LopeyTall added just a bit to make it more clear. Seems like your error is that you are writing the exponential as a product of three parts, one for each components, but $\exp(A+B)\ne \exp(A)\exp(B)$ unless $A,B$ commute which is NOT the case for Pauli’s. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Sep 12 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, I am a bit confused by the new material in your answer. I understand your comment, and I've altered the way I'm approaching the problem based on your CBH suggestion, but I'm not sure I ought to be showing $\hat{H}_H=\hat{H}$ (please correct me if I'm wrong!) I was using your CBH suggestion to try to show the following: $ (\vec{\sigma})_H = e^{\frac{it}{\hbar}H} \vec{\sigma} e^{\frac{-it}{\hbar}H} = \vec{\sigma} $ then by the form of CBH appearing here with $e^A O e^-{A} = O + [A,O] + ...$ And so I was focusing on $[H,\vec{\sigma}]$ which I show is zero.... but then the EOM = triv, no? $\endgroup$ – Lopey Tall Sep 12 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ I've added an edit which was what I meant in my faulty Tex comment (deleted) above. $\endgroup$ – Lopey Tall Sep 12 at 19:09

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.