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.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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















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.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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













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.










share|cite|improve this question















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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


















  • 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










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.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 3 at 14:50









          yuggib

          8,60811332




          8,60811332






















              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  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.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 3 at 12:48









                  probably_someone

                  15.9k12554




                  15.9k12554






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                      Aardman Animations

                      Are they similar matrix