3
$\begingroup$

Suppose that we have a hermitian operator. Let's take for example the Identical operator $I: I\Psi=\Psi$. What does the operator $e^{I}$ do? does it result in $e^{\Psi}$ or something else? What happens if we replace it with the momentum operator $p$?

$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

You can Taylor-expand it just like you would a polynomial. Given the definition of the exponential function as a Taylor series, $$ e^{ax} = 1 + ax + \frac{(ax)^2}{2!} + \frac{(ax)^3}{3!} + \cdots,$$

you can generalize it to operators. Accordingly, the exponentiation of an operator, say the Hamiltonian $\hat{H},$ can be written as an infinite series of operators: $$ e^{\hat{H}} = \mathbb{I} + \hat{H} + \frac{\hat{H}^2}{2!} + \frac{\hat{H}^3}{3!} + \cdots$$ where the first operator on the right-hand-side is the identity operator: $\mathbb{I}: \mathbb{I} \psi = \psi.$

Of course, the choice of the operator is arbitrary, and as far as I know, it does not need to be Hermitian or unitary. In Quantum Mechanics, exponentiated operators serve the role of generators of motion in time or in a Hilbert space. For instance, the momentum operator $\hat{p}$ exponentiated as $e^{- i \, \textbf{x} \cdot \hat{p}/\hbar}$ represents a translation in position when applied to a wavefunction $\psi(x).$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The reason that this is a sensical definition is that a lot of identities from the exponential function can be proven using the Taylor series. So this carries over nicely to the operator definition. Try to 'proof' $\frac{d}{dx}e^{ax}=ae^{ax}$ using the Taylor series for example. A notable exception is that $e^{\hat A} e^{\hat B}\neq e^{\hat A\hat B}$. The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula describes why and how this fails. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$ – AccidentalTaylorExpansion Sep 30 at 8:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Another important exception: if $\hat H(t)$ depends on a parameter $t$ in such a way that $\left[\hat H(t), \tfrac{\mathrm d\hat H}{\mathrm dt}(t)\right]\neq 0$, then $ \tfrac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt}\left[e^{\hat H(t)} \right]\neq \tfrac{\mathrm d\hat H}{\mathrm dt}(t) e^{\hat H(t)} $. This is why time-ordered exponentials need to be used for the formal solution of the Schrödinger equation. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Sep 30 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ The series definition really only works for bounded exponents. For the general proper definition see physics.stackexchange.com/q/574621/50583. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Sep 30 at 18:13
3
$\begingroup$

Functions of operators are understood as Taylor expansions. Thus, in the case of an exponent: $$ e^{\hat{A}} = \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \frac{\hat{A}^n}{n!} $$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Though in the case where the operator is diagonalizable, we can also take the more direct approach $f(A)\vert\psi\rangle:=f(a)\vert\psi\rangle$ for eigenstates $\vert\psi\rangle$ of $A$ with eigenvalue $a$ and then extending linearly to all other states. This approach also works for functions which do not have a series representation. $\endgroup$ – Vercassivelaunos Sep 30 at 8:52
  • $\begingroup$ This is the first time I see this approach, but it does make sense. $\endgroup$ – Vadim Sep 30 at 8:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The series definition really only works for bounded exponents. For the general proper definition see physics.stackexchange.com/q/574621/50583. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Sep 30 at 18:13

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.