Logarithm of Operators in Quantum Mechanics
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
In an operators algebra $mathcal{A}$ one can consider a self-adjoint (i.e. real) operator $H$ and note that $$U=e^{iH}$$ exists and is unitary. A mathematical question will be whether any unitary operator $U$ is of this form. For there even exist examples where $X,Y$ are self-adjoint and $XYneq YX$ and
$$
e^{iX}e^{iY}neq e^{i(X+Y)}.
$$
I would like to know what information can be deduced for $U$ by knowing that there exists a logarithm $$H=frac{1}{i}log U,$$ and what are concrete applications in QM for this.
quantum-mechanics operators hamiltonian time-evolution unitarity
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
In an operators algebra $mathcal{A}$ one can consider a self-adjoint (i.e. real) operator $H$ and note that $$U=e^{iH}$$ exists and is unitary. A mathematical question will be whether any unitary operator $U$ is of this form. For there even exist examples where $X,Y$ are self-adjoint and $XYneq YX$ and
$$
e^{iX}e^{iY}neq e^{i(X+Y)}.
$$
I would like to know what information can be deduced for $U$ by knowing that there exists a logarithm $$H=frac{1}{i}log U,$$ and what are concrete applications in QM for this.
quantum-mechanics operators hamiltonian time-evolution unitarity
Can you give an example where $e^{iX} e^{i Y} neq e^{i(X+Y)}$? I'm curious.
– infinitezero
Dec 3 at 17:11
@infinitezero $e^{ialpha L_z}e^{ibeta L_y}$?
– ZeroTheHero
Dec 3 at 18:05
@infinitezero Entire quantum theory is based on that simple non-equality. Operators need not necessarily commute. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Avantgarde
Dec 3 at 18:23
Eh yes, of course, I just potatoed there I guess.
– infinitezero
Dec 4 at 15:26
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
In an operators algebra $mathcal{A}$ one can consider a self-adjoint (i.e. real) operator $H$ and note that $$U=e^{iH}$$ exists and is unitary. A mathematical question will be whether any unitary operator $U$ is of this form. For there even exist examples where $X,Y$ are self-adjoint and $XYneq YX$ and
$$
e^{iX}e^{iY}neq e^{i(X+Y)}.
$$
I would like to know what information can be deduced for $U$ by knowing that there exists a logarithm $$H=frac{1}{i}log U,$$ and what are concrete applications in QM for this.
quantum-mechanics operators hamiltonian time-evolution unitarity
In an operators algebra $mathcal{A}$ one can consider a self-adjoint (i.e. real) operator $H$ and note that $$U=e^{iH}$$ exists and is unitary. A mathematical question will be whether any unitary operator $U$ is of this form. For there even exist examples where $X,Y$ are self-adjoint and $XYneq YX$ and
$$
e^{iX}e^{iY}neq e^{i(X+Y)}.
$$
I would like to know what information can be deduced for $U$ by knowing that there exists a logarithm $$H=frac{1}{i}log U,$$ and what are concrete applications in QM for this.
quantum-mechanics operators hamiltonian time-evolution unitarity
quantum-mechanics operators hamiltonian time-evolution unitarity
edited Dec 3 at 12:54
Qmechanic♦
100k121811133
100k121811133
asked Dec 3 at 12:23
Or Kedar
311
311
Can you give an example where $e^{iX} e^{i Y} neq e^{i(X+Y)}$? I'm curious.
– infinitezero
Dec 3 at 17:11
@infinitezero $e^{ialpha L_z}e^{ibeta L_y}$?
– ZeroTheHero
Dec 3 at 18:05
@infinitezero Entire quantum theory is based on that simple non-equality. Operators need not necessarily commute. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Avantgarde
Dec 3 at 18:23
Eh yes, of course, I just potatoed there I guess.
– infinitezero
Dec 4 at 15:26
add a comment |
Can you give an example where $e^{iX} e^{i Y} neq e^{i(X+Y)}$? I'm curious.
– infinitezero
Dec 3 at 17:11
@infinitezero $e^{ialpha L_z}e^{ibeta L_y}$?
– ZeroTheHero
Dec 3 at 18:05
@infinitezero Entire quantum theory is based on that simple non-equality. Operators need not necessarily commute. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Avantgarde
Dec 3 at 18:23
Eh yes, of course, I just potatoed there I guess.
– infinitezero
Dec 4 at 15:26
Can you give an example where $e^{iX} e^{i Y} neq e^{i(X+Y)}$? I'm curious.
– infinitezero
Dec 3 at 17:11
Can you give an example where $e^{iX} e^{i Y} neq e^{i(X+Y)}$? I'm curious.
– infinitezero
Dec 3 at 17:11
@infinitezero $e^{ialpha L_z}e^{ibeta L_y}$?
– ZeroTheHero
Dec 3 at 18:05
@infinitezero $e^{ialpha L_z}e^{ibeta L_y}$?
– ZeroTheHero
Dec 3 at 18:05
@infinitezero Entire quantum theory is based on that simple non-equality. Operators need not necessarily commute. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Avantgarde
Dec 3 at 18:23
@infinitezero Entire quantum theory is based on that simple non-equality. Operators need not necessarily commute. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Avantgarde
Dec 3 at 18:23
Eh yes, of course, I just potatoed there I guess.
– infinitezero
Dec 4 at 15:26
Eh yes, of course, I just potatoed there I guess.
– infinitezero
Dec 4 at 15:26
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
The Stone's theorem proves the following. Consider a group of unitary operators $(U(t))_{tinmathbb{R}}$ acting on a Hilbert space $mathscr{H}$ (i.e. satisfying $U(t+s)=U(t)U(s)$, in more mathematical terms this is a unitary representation of the abelian group $mathbb{R}$ on $mathscr{H}$). If in addition such group is strongly continuous, namely is such that for all $psiinmathscr{H}$
$$lim_{tto 0} , lVert U(t)psi-psirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
then there exists a self-adjoint operator $H$ defined on $D(H)subseteqmathscr{H}$ that generates the dynamics, i.e. such that for all $psiin D(H)$
$$lim_{tto 0}lVert frac{1}{t}(U(t)-1)psi+iHpsirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
and for all $phiin mathscr{H}$, $U(t)phi=e^{-itH}phi$ where the right hand side is defined by the spectral theorem. Also by the spectral theorem, it is in this case "justified" to write $H=iln U(1)$.
The above theorem is the one commonly used in quantum mechanics, since it relates the quantum Hamiltonian (the generator $H$) to the unitary dynamics it generates (the group $U(t)$). There are ways to take the "logarithm" of a single unitary operator (e.g. by means of a Cayley transform), however this is not very relevant in physics since the important objects are unitary representations of symmetry groups rather than unitary operators per se.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Time evolution in quantum mechanics* is represented by the action of a unitary operator $U=e^{iHt}$, where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of the system in question. We usually characterize (non-relativistic**) quantum systems by their Hamiltonian; in principle, one could determine*** the Hamiltonian of a system given a time evolution operator $U$ by taking $frac{1}{it}log U$. In practice, going in this direction is not usually practical from an experimental perspective, which is why this is not often mentioned.
*In quantum mechanics, the question of which objects evolve in time is a matter of interpretation. In some cases it is easier to think of the wavefunctions as evolving in time (the "Schrodinger picture"), in other cases it is simpler to think of the operators as evolving in time (the "Heisenberg picture"), and in still other cases it is a mix of both that is simplest (the "interaction picture").
**The Hamiltonian is not Lorentz-invariant, which is why you don't often see it in relativistic quantum mechanics/QFT. The Lagrangian, on the other hand, is.
***The log is not necessarily unique, so the Hamiltonian can only be "determined" up to the equivalent of a choice of branch cut.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f444850%2flogarithm-of-operators-in-quantum-mechanics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
The Stone's theorem proves the following. Consider a group of unitary operators $(U(t))_{tinmathbb{R}}$ acting on a Hilbert space $mathscr{H}$ (i.e. satisfying $U(t+s)=U(t)U(s)$, in more mathematical terms this is a unitary representation of the abelian group $mathbb{R}$ on $mathscr{H}$). If in addition such group is strongly continuous, namely is such that for all $psiinmathscr{H}$
$$lim_{tto 0} , lVert U(t)psi-psirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
then there exists a self-adjoint operator $H$ defined on $D(H)subseteqmathscr{H}$ that generates the dynamics, i.e. such that for all $psiin D(H)$
$$lim_{tto 0}lVert frac{1}{t}(U(t)-1)psi+iHpsirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
and for all $phiin mathscr{H}$, $U(t)phi=e^{-itH}phi$ where the right hand side is defined by the spectral theorem. Also by the spectral theorem, it is in this case "justified" to write $H=iln U(1)$.
The above theorem is the one commonly used in quantum mechanics, since it relates the quantum Hamiltonian (the generator $H$) to the unitary dynamics it generates (the group $U(t)$). There are ways to take the "logarithm" of a single unitary operator (e.g. by means of a Cayley transform), however this is not very relevant in physics since the important objects are unitary representations of symmetry groups rather than unitary operators per se.
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
The Stone's theorem proves the following. Consider a group of unitary operators $(U(t))_{tinmathbb{R}}$ acting on a Hilbert space $mathscr{H}$ (i.e. satisfying $U(t+s)=U(t)U(s)$, in more mathematical terms this is a unitary representation of the abelian group $mathbb{R}$ on $mathscr{H}$). If in addition such group is strongly continuous, namely is such that for all $psiinmathscr{H}$
$$lim_{tto 0} , lVert U(t)psi-psirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
then there exists a self-adjoint operator $H$ defined on $D(H)subseteqmathscr{H}$ that generates the dynamics, i.e. such that for all $psiin D(H)$
$$lim_{tto 0}lVert frac{1}{t}(U(t)-1)psi+iHpsirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
and for all $phiin mathscr{H}$, $U(t)phi=e^{-itH}phi$ where the right hand side is defined by the spectral theorem. Also by the spectral theorem, it is in this case "justified" to write $H=iln U(1)$.
The above theorem is the one commonly used in quantum mechanics, since it relates the quantum Hamiltonian (the generator $H$) to the unitary dynamics it generates (the group $U(t)$). There are ways to take the "logarithm" of a single unitary operator (e.g. by means of a Cayley transform), however this is not very relevant in physics since the important objects are unitary representations of symmetry groups rather than unitary operators per se.
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
The Stone's theorem proves the following. Consider a group of unitary operators $(U(t))_{tinmathbb{R}}$ acting on a Hilbert space $mathscr{H}$ (i.e. satisfying $U(t+s)=U(t)U(s)$, in more mathematical terms this is a unitary representation of the abelian group $mathbb{R}$ on $mathscr{H}$). If in addition such group is strongly continuous, namely is such that for all $psiinmathscr{H}$
$$lim_{tto 0} , lVert U(t)psi-psirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
then there exists a self-adjoint operator $H$ defined on $D(H)subseteqmathscr{H}$ that generates the dynamics, i.e. such that for all $psiin D(H)$
$$lim_{tto 0}lVert frac{1}{t}(U(t)-1)psi+iHpsirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
and for all $phiin mathscr{H}$, $U(t)phi=e^{-itH}phi$ where the right hand side is defined by the spectral theorem. Also by the spectral theorem, it is in this case "justified" to write $H=iln U(1)$.
The above theorem is the one commonly used in quantum mechanics, since it relates the quantum Hamiltonian (the generator $H$) to the unitary dynamics it generates (the group $U(t)$). There are ways to take the "logarithm" of a single unitary operator (e.g. by means of a Cayley transform), however this is not very relevant in physics since the important objects are unitary representations of symmetry groups rather than unitary operators per se.
The Stone's theorem proves the following. Consider a group of unitary operators $(U(t))_{tinmathbb{R}}$ acting on a Hilbert space $mathscr{H}$ (i.e. satisfying $U(t+s)=U(t)U(s)$, in more mathematical terms this is a unitary representation of the abelian group $mathbb{R}$ on $mathscr{H}$). If in addition such group is strongly continuous, namely is such that for all $psiinmathscr{H}$
$$lim_{tto 0} , lVert U(t)psi-psirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
then there exists a self-adjoint operator $H$ defined on $D(H)subseteqmathscr{H}$ that generates the dynamics, i.e. such that for all $psiin D(H)$
$$lim_{tto 0}lVert frac{1}{t}(U(t)-1)psi+iHpsirVert_{mathscr{H}}=0; ,$$
and for all $phiin mathscr{H}$, $U(t)phi=e^{-itH}phi$ where the right hand side is defined by the spectral theorem. Also by the spectral theorem, it is in this case "justified" to write $H=iln U(1)$.
The above theorem is the one commonly used in quantum mechanics, since it relates the quantum Hamiltonian (the generator $H$) to the unitary dynamics it generates (the group $U(t)$). There are ways to take the "logarithm" of a single unitary operator (e.g. by means of a Cayley transform), however this is not very relevant in physics since the important objects are unitary representations of symmetry groups rather than unitary operators per se.
answered Dec 3 at 14:50
yuggib
8,60811332
8,60811332
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Time evolution in quantum mechanics* is represented by the action of a unitary operator $U=e^{iHt}$, where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of the system in question. We usually characterize (non-relativistic**) quantum systems by their Hamiltonian; in principle, one could determine*** the Hamiltonian of a system given a time evolution operator $U$ by taking $frac{1}{it}log U$. In practice, going in this direction is not usually practical from an experimental perspective, which is why this is not often mentioned.
*In quantum mechanics, the question of which objects evolve in time is a matter of interpretation. In some cases it is easier to think of the wavefunctions as evolving in time (the "Schrodinger picture"), in other cases it is simpler to think of the operators as evolving in time (the "Heisenberg picture"), and in still other cases it is a mix of both that is simplest (the "interaction picture").
**The Hamiltonian is not Lorentz-invariant, which is why you don't often see it in relativistic quantum mechanics/QFT. The Lagrangian, on the other hand, is.
***The log is not necessarily unique, so the Hamiltonian can only be "determined" up to the equivalent of a choice of branch cut.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Time evolution in quantum mechanics* is represented by the action of a unitary operator $U=e^{iHt}$, where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of the system in question. We usually characterize (non-relativistic**) quantum systems by their Hamiltonian; in principle, one could determine*** the Hamiltonian of a system given a time evolution operator $U$ by taking $frac{1}{it}log U$. In practice, going in this direction is not usually practical from an experimental perspective, which is why this is not often mentioned.
*In quantum mechanics, the question of which objects evolve in time is a matter of interpretation. In some cases it is easier to think of the wavefunctions as evolving in time (the "Schrodinger picture"), in other cases it is simpler to think of the operators as evolving in time (the "Heisenberg picture"), and in still other cases it is a mix of both that is simplest (the "interaction picture").
**The Hamiltonian is not Lorentz-invariant, which is why you don't often see it in relativistic quantum mechanics/QFT. The Lagrangian, on the other hand, is.
***The log is not necessarily unique, so the Hamiltonian can only be "determined" up to the equivalent of a choice of branch cut.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Time evolution in quantum mechanics* is represented by the action of a unitary operator $U=e^{iHt}$, where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of the system in question. We usually characterize (non-relativistic**) quantum systems by their Hamiltonian; in principle, one could determine*** the Hamiltonian of a system given a time evolution operator $U$ by taking $frac{1}{it}log U$. In practice, going in this direction is not usually practical from an experimental perspective, which is why this is not often mentioned.
*In quantum mechanics, the question of which objects evolve in time is a matter of interpretation. In some cases it is easier to think of the wavefunctions as evolving in time (the "Schrodinger picture"), in other cases it is simpler to think of the operators as evolving in time (the "Heisenberg picture"), and in still other cases it is a mix of both that is simplest (the "interaction picture").
**The Hamiltonian is not Lorentz-invariant, which is why you don't often see it in relativistic quantum mechanics/QFT. The Lagrangian, on the other hand, is.
***The log is not necessarily unique, so the Hamiltonian can only be "determined" up to the equivalent of a choice of branch cut.
Time evolution in quantum mechanics* is represented by the action of a unitary operator $U=e^{iHt}$, where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of the system in question. We usually characterize (non-relativistic**) quantum systems by their Hamiltonian; in principle, one could determine*** the Hamiltonian of a system given a time evolution operator $U$ by taking $frac{1}{it}log U$. In practice, going in this direction is not usually practical from an experimental perspective, which is why this is not often mentioned.
*In quantum mechanics, the question of which objects evolve in time is a matter of interpretation. In some cases it is easier to think of the wavefunctions as evolving in time (the "Schrodinger picture"), in other cases it is simpler to think of the operators as evolving in time (the "Heisenberg picture"), and in still other cases it is a mix of both that is simplest (the "interaction picture").
**The Hamiltonian is not Lorentz-invariant, which is why you don't often see it in relativistic quantum mechanics/QFT. The Lagrangian, on the other hand, is.
***The log is not necessarily unique, so the Hamiltonian can only be "determined" up to the equivalent of a choice of branch cut.
answered Dec 3 at 12:48
probably_someone
15.9k12554
15.9k12554
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f444850%2flogarithm-of-operators-in-quantum-mechanics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Can you give an example where $e^{iX} e^{i Y} neq e^{i(X+Y)}$? I'm curious.
– infinitezero
Dec 3 at 17:11
@infinitezero $e^{ialpha L_z}e^{ibeta L_y}$?
– ZeroTheHero
Dec 3 at 18:05
@infinitezero Entire quantum theory is based on that simple non-equality. Operators need not necessarily commute. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Avantgarde
Dec 3 at 18:23
Eh yes, of course, I just potatoed there I guess.
– infinitezero
Dec 4 at 15:26