How come there are Schrödinger Picture operators with explicit time dependence?











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












In the Schrödinger picture, observables are said to be time independent (see Cohen, for example) operators. However, when deriving the Heisenberg Equation of Motion $$ihbarfrac{d}{dt}A_H(t)=[A_H(t),H_H(t)]+ihbarBig(frac{partial}{partial t}A_S(t)Big)_H.$$ a term with an explicit time dependence of the operator in the Schrödinger picture appears. I looked at other related questions and some argued that in the S-picture, only operators that are related to observables are time-independent. Is this really the case? If so, is this equation a general description of dynamics of operators and reduces to $$ihbarfrac{d}{dt}A_H(t)=[A_H(t),H_H(t)]$$ if $A_S$ is an observable? Furthermore, is the existence of (explicit) time dependence equivalent to time evolution?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Which other related question?
    – Qmechanic
    2 days ago










  • @Qmechanic this one physics.stackexchange.com/q/351020
    – João Pedro Gomide
    2 days ago

















up vote
4
down vote

favorite












In the Schrödinger picture, observables are said to be time independent (see Cohen, for example) operators. However, when deriving the Heisenberg Equation of Motion $$ihbarfrac{d}{dt}A_H(t)=[A_H(t),H_H(t)]+ihbarBig(frac{partial}{partial t}A_S(t)Big)_H.$$ a term with an explicit time dependence of the operator in the Schrödinger picture appears. I looked at other related questions and some argued that in the S-picture, only operators that are related to observables are time-independent. Is this really the case? If so, is this equation a general description of dynamics of operators and reduces to $$ihbarfrac{d}{dt}A_H(t)=[A_H(t),H_H(t)]$$ if $A_S$ is an observable? Furthermore, is the existence of (explicit) time dependence equivalent to time evolution?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Which other related question?
    – Qmechanic
    2 days ago










  • @Qmechanic this one physics.stackexchange.com/q/351020
    – João Pedro Gomide
    2 days ago















up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











In the Schrödinger picture, observables are said to be time independent (see Cohen, for example) operators. However, when deriving the Heisenberg Equation of Motion $$ihbarfrac{d}{dt}A_H(t)=[A_H(t),H_H(t)]+ihbarBig(frac{partial}{partial t}A_S(t)Big)_H.$$ a term with an explicit time dependence of the operator in the Schrödinger picture appears. I looked at other related questions and some argued that in the S-picture, only operators that are related to observables are time-independent. Is this really the case? If so, is this equation a general description of dynamics of operators and reduces to $$ihbarfrac{d}{dt}A_H(t)=[A_H(t),H_H(t)]$$ if $A_S$ is an observable? Furthermore, is the existence of (explicit) time dependence equivalent to time evolution?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











In the Schrödinger picture, observables are said to be time independent (see Cohen, for example) operators. However, when deriving the Heisenberg Equation of Motion $$ihbarfrac{d}{dt}A_H(t)=[A_H(t),H_H(t)]+ihbarBig(frac{partial}{partial t}A_S(t)Big)_H.$$ a term with an explicit time dependence of the operator in the Schrödinger picture appears. I looked at other related questions and some argued that in the S-picture, only operators that are related to observables are time-independent. Is this really the case? If so, is this equation a general description of dynamics of operators and reduces to $$ihbarfrac{d}{dt}A_H(t)=[A_H(t),H_H(t)]$$ if $A_S$ is an observable? Furthermore, is the existence of (explicit) time dependence equivalent to time evolution?







quantum-mechanics operators observables time-evolution






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Qmechanic

99.5k121781113




99.5k121781113






New contributor




João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Nov 18 at 3:15









João Pedro Gomide

235




235




New contributor




João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Which other related question?
    – Qmechanic
    2 days ago










  • @Qmechanic this one physics.stackexchange.com/q/351020
    – João Pedro Gomide
    2 days ago




















  • Which other related question?
    – Qmechanic
    2 days ago










  • @Qmechanic this one physics.stackexchange.com/q/351020
    – João Pedro Gomide
    2 days ago


















Which other related question?
– Qmechanic
2 days ago




Which other related question?
– Qmechanic
2 days ago












@Qmechanic this one physics.stackexchange.com/q/351020
– João Pedro Gomide
2 days ago






@Qmechanic this one physics.stackexchange.com/q/351020
– João Pedro Gomide
2 days ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










In the Schrodinger picture there is no time dependence of operators due to unitary transformations. Operators in the Schrodinger picture can still have a time dependence if something is physically changing$^*$. An example of this is if we have a particle in a time dependent electric field. The Hamiltonian will have time dependence due to the field actually changing, not because of a unitary time evolution (if we treat the field as external to the system). The eigenvalues (possible measurement outcomes) in this case can have a time dependence.



So, in the Schrodinger picture, unitary transformations are what cause the state vector to change over time. Operators do not evolve through time in this way. If an operator does have explicit time dependence, it is due to something physical the operator depends on that is physically changing. This time dependence does not have to be described as a unitary transformation.





$^*$ This seems to have gained some confusion here. I am not saying that unitary transformations do not have physical consequences. I am saying they do not represent physical changes themselves; they only represent changes in the probability of measuring the system to be in some state. State vectors and operators are not physical things, so unitary transformations that cause them to change are not direct physical changes. On the other hand, in my example fields are physical, directly measurable things. In the Schrodinger picture operators that depend on the field can have explicit time dependence, and so can the eigenvalues associated with those operators.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    The "time dependence" of states and operators "due to unitary transformations" is exactly the difference between each picture, right? And these unitary transformations are time evolution, right? What I can't seem to grasp is the difference between this time dependence and an explicit time dependence. Explicit time dependencies cannot be seen as time evolutions? What is the difference between them, physically speaking?
    – João Pedro Gomide
    Nov 18 at 3:40












  • @JoãoPedroGomide are you asking what the physical difference is between the Shrodinger and Heisenberg pictures are?
    – Aaron Stevens
    Nov 18 at 4:37






  • 1




    @JoãoPedroGomide Or are you asking for a physical explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution?
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 days ago






  • 2




    This is very similar to the difference between explicit and implicit time dependence of the Lagrangian in classical mechanics. Here by implicit I mean the dependence through the time-dependence of coordinates and velocities on the path that solves Euler-Lagrange equations.
    – Andrew Steane
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @AaronStevens I was asking for a "physical" explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution. But both your edit and Andrew Steane's comment made it really much more clear. Thank you!
    – João Pedro Gomide
    2 days ago











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
});


}
});






João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f441656%2fhow-come-there-are-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-picture-operators-with-explicit-time-dependence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote



accepted










In the Schrodinger picture there is no time dependence of operators due to unitary transformations. Operators in the Schrodinger picture can still have a time dependence if something is physically changing$^*$. An example of this is if we have a particle in a time dependent electric field. The Hamiltonian will have time dependence due to the field actually changing, not because of a unitary time evolution (if we treat the field as external to the system). The eigenvalues (possible measurement outcomes) in this case can have a time dependence.



So, in the Schrodinger picture, unitary transformations are what cause the state vector to change over time. Operators do not evolve through time in this way. If an operator does have explicit time dependence, it is due to something physical the operator depends on that is physically changing. This time dependence does not have to be described as a unitary transformation.





$^*$ This seems to have gained some confusion here. I am not saying that unitary transformations do not have physical consequences. I am saying they do not represent physical changes themselves; they only represent changes in the probability of measuring the system to be in some state. State vectors and operators are not physical things, so unitary transformations that cause them to change are not direct physical changes. On the other hand, in my example fields are physical, directly measurable things. In the Schrodinger picture operators that depend on the field can have explicit time dependence, and so can the eigenvalues associated with those operators.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    The "time dependence" of states and operators "due to unitary transformations" is exactly the difference between each picture, right? And these unitary transformations are time evolution, right? What I can't seem to grasp is the difference between this time dependence and an explicit time dependence. Explicit time dependencies cannot be seen as time evolutions? What is the difference between them, physically speaking?
    – João Pedro Gomide
    Nov 18 at 3:40












  • @JoãoPedroGomide are you asking what the physical difference is between the Shrodinger and Heisenberg pictures are?
    – Aaron Stevens
    Nov 18 at 4:37






  • 1




    @JoãoPedroGomide Or are you asking for a physical explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution?
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 days ago






  • 2




    This is very similar to the difference between explicit and implicit time dependence of the Lagrangian in classical mechanics. Here by implicit I mean the dependence through the time-dependence of coordinates and velocities on the path that solves Euler-Lagrange equations.
    – Andrew Steane
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @AaronStevens I was asking for a "physical" explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution. But both your edit and Andrew Steane's comment made it really much more clear. Thank you!
    – João Pedro Gomide
    2 days ago















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










In the Schrodinger picture there is no time dependence of operators due to unitary transformations. Operators in the Schrodinger picture can still have a time dependence if something is physically changing$^*$. An example of this is if we have a particle in a time dependent electric field. The Hamiltonian will have time dependence due to the field actually changing, not because of a unitary time evolution (if we treat the field as external to the system). The eigenvalues (possible measurement outcomes) in this case can have a time dependence.



So, in the Schrodinger picture, unitary transformations are what cause the state vector to change over time. Operators do not evolve through time in this way. If an operator does have explicit time dependence, it is due to something physical the operator depends on that is physically changing. This time dependence does not have to be described as a unitary transformation.





$^*$ This seems to have gained some confusion here. I am not saying that unitary transformations do not have physical consequences. I am saying they do not represent physical changes themselves; they only represent changes in the probability of measuring the system to be in some state. State vectors and operators are not physical things, so unitary transformations that cause them to change are not direct physical changes. On the other hand, in my example fields are physical, directly measurable things. In the Schrodinger picture operators that depend on the field can have explicit time dependence, and so can the eigenvalues associated with those operators.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    The "time dependence" of states and operators "due to unitary transformations" is exactly the difference between each picture, right? And these unitary transformations are time evolution, right? What I can't seem to grasp is the difference between this time dependence and an explicit time dependence. Explicit time dependencies cannot be seen as time evolutions? What is the difference between them, physically speaking?
    – João Pedro Gomide
    Nov 18 at 3:40












  • @JoãoPedroGomide are you asking what the physical difference is between the Shrodinger and Heisenberg pictures are?
    – Aaron Stevens
    Nov 18 at 4:37






  • 1




    @JoãoPedroGomide Or are you asking for a physical explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution?
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 days ago






  • 2




    This is very similar to the difference between explicit and implicit time dependence of the Lagrangian in classical mechanics. Here by implicit I mean the dependence through the time-dependence of coordinates and velocities on the path that solves Euler-Lagrange equations.
    – Andrew Steane
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @AaronStevens I was asking for a "physical" explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution. But both your edit and Andrew Steane's comment made it really much more clear. Thank you!
    – João Pedro Gomide
    2 days ago













up vote
4
down vote



accepted







up vote
4
down vote



accepted






In the Schrodinger picture there is no time dependence of operators due to unitary transformations. Operators in the Schrodinger picture can still have a time dependence if something is physically changing$^*$. An example of this is if we have a particle in a time dependent electric field. The Hamiltonian will have time dependence due to the field actually changing, not because of a unitary time evolution (if we treat the field as external to the system). The eigenvalues (possible measurement outcomes) in this case can have a time dependence.



So, in the Schrodinger picture, unitary transformations are what cause the state vector to change over time. Operators do not evolve through time in this way. If an operator does have explicit time dependence, it is due to something physical the operator depends on that is physically changing. This time dependence does not have to be described as a unitary transformation.





$^*$ This seems to have gained some confusion here. I am not saying that unitary transformations do not have physical consequences. I am saying they do not represent physical changes themselves; they only represent changes in the probability of measuring the system to be in some state. State vectors and operators are not physical things, so unitary transformations that cause them to change are not direct physical changes. On the other hand, in my example fields are physical, directly measurable things. In the Schrodinger picture operators that depend on the field can have explicit time dependence, and so can the eigenvalues associated with those operators.






share|cite|improve this answer














In the Schrodinger picture there is no time dependence of operators due to unitary transformations. Operators in the Schrodinger picture can still have a time dependence if something is physically changing$^*$. An example of this is if we have a particle in a time dependent electric field. The Hamiltonian will have time dependence due to the field actually changing, not because of a unitary time evolution (if we treat the field as external to the system). The eigenvalues (possible measurement outcomes) in this case can have a time dependence.



So, in the Schrodinger picture, unitary transformations are what cause the state vector to change over time. Operators do not evolve through time in this way. If an operator does have explicit time dependence, it is due to something physical the operator depends on that is physically changing. This time dependence does not have to be described as a unitary transformation.





$^*$ This seems to have gained some confusion here. I am not saying that unitary transformations do not have physical consequences. I am saying they do not represent physical changes themselves; they only represent changes in the probability of measuring the system to be in some state. State vectors and operators are not physical things, so unitary transformations that cause them to change are not direct physical changes. On the other hand, in my example fields are physical, directly measurable things. In the Schrodinger picture operators that depend on the field can have explicit time dependence, and so can the eigenvalues associated with those operators.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered Nov 18 at 3:30









Aaron Stevens

7,16231235




7,16231235








  • 1




    The "time dependence" of states and operators "due to unitary transformations" is exactly the difference between each picture, right? And these unitary transformations are time evolution, right? What I can't seem to grasp is the difference between this time dependence and an explicit time dependence. Explicit time dependencies cannot be seen as time evolutions? What is the difference between them, physically speaking?
    – João Pedro Gomide
    Nov 18 at 3:40












  • @JoãoPedroGomide are you asking what the physical difference is between the Shrodinger and Heisenberg pictures are?
    – Aaron Stevens
    Nov 18 at 4:37






  • 1




    @JoãoPedroGomide Or are you asking for a physical explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution?
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 days ago






  • 2




    This is very similar to the difference between explicit and implicit time dependence of the Lagrangian in classical mechanics. Here by implicit I mean the dependence through the time-dependence of coordinates and velocities on the path that solves Euler-Lagrange equations.
    – Andrew Steane
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @AaronStevens I was asking for a "physical" explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution. But both your edit and Andrew Steane's comment made it really much more clear. Thank you!
    – João Pedro Gomide
    2 days ago














  • 1




    The "time dependence" of states and operators "due to unitary transformations" is exactly the difference between each picture, right? And these unitary transformations are time evolution, right? What I can't seem to grasp is the difference between this time dependence and an explicit time dependence. Explicit time dependencies cannot be seen as time evolutions? What is the difference between them, physically speaking?
    – João Pedro Gomide
    Nov 18 at 3:40












  • @JoãoPedroGomide are you asking what the physical difference is between the Shrodinger and Heisenberg pictures are?
    – Aaron Stevens
    Nov 18 at 4:37






  • 1




    @JoãoPedroGomide Or are you asking for a physical explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution?
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 days ago






  • 2




    This is very similar to the difference between explicit and implicit time dependence of the Lagrangian in classical mechanics. Here by implicit I mean the dependence through the time-dependence of coordinates and velocities on the path that solves Euler-Lagrange equations.
    – Andrew Steane
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @AaronStevens I was asking for a "physical" explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution. But both your edit and Andrew Steane's comment made it really much more clear. Thank you!
    – João Pedro Gomide
    2 days ago








1




1




The "time dependence" of states and operators "due to unitary transformations" is exactly the difference between each picture, right? And these unitary transformations are time evolution, right? What I can't seem to grasp is the difference between this time dependence and an explicit time dependence. Explicit time dependencies cannot be seen as time evolutions? What is the difference between them, physically speaking?
– João Pedro Gomide
Nov 18 at 3:40






The "time dependence" of states and operators "due to unitary transformations" is exactly the difference between each picture, right? And these unitary transformations are time evolution, right? What I can't seem to grasp is the difference between this time dependence and an explicit time dependence. Explicit time dependencies cannot be seen as time evolutions? What is the difference between them, physically speaking?
– João Pedro Gomide
Nov 18 at 3:40














@JoãoPedroGomide are you asking what the physical difference is between the Shrodinger and Heisenberg pictures are?
– Aaron Stevens
Nov 18 at 4:37




@JoãoPedroGomide are you asking what the physical difference is between the Shrodinger and Heisenberg pictures are?
– Aaron Stevens
Nov 18 at 4:37




1




1




@JoãoPedroGomide Or are you asking for a physical explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution?
– Aaron Stevens
2 days ago




@JoãoPedroGomide Or are you asking for a physical explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution?
– Aaron Stevens
2 days ago




2




2




This is very similar to the difference between explicit and implicit time dependence of the Lagrangian in classical mechanics. Here by implicit I mean the dependence through the time-dependence of coordinates and velocities on the path that solves Euler-Lagrange equations.
– Andrew Steane
2 days ago




This is very similar to the difference between explicit and implicit time dependence of the Lagrangian in classical mechanics. Here by implicit I mean the dependence through the time-dependence of coordinates and velocities on the path that solves Euler-Lagrange equations.
– Andrew Steane
2 days ago




1




1




@AaronStevens I was asking for a "physical" explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution. But both your edit and Andrew Steane's comment made it really much more clear. Thank you!
– João Pedro Gomide
2 days ago




@AaronStevens I was asking for a "physical" explanation of a unitary transformation/evolution. But both your edit and Andrew Steane's comment made it really much more clear. Thank you!
– João Pedro Gomide
2 days ago










João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










 

draft saved


draft discarded


















João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












João Pedro Gomide is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f441656%2fhow-come-there-are-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-picture-operators-with-explicit-time-dependence%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

flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

Mangá

 ⁒  ․,‪⁊‑⁙ ⁖, ⁇‒※‌, †,⁖‗‌⁝    ‾‸⁘,‖⁔⁣,⁂‾
”‑,‥–,‬ ,⁀‹⁋‴⁑ ‒ ,‴⁋”‼ ⁨,‷⁔„ ‰′,‐‚ ‥‡‎“‷⁃⁨⁅⁣,⁔
⁇‘⁔⁡⁏⁌⁡‿‶‏⁨ ⁣⁕⁖⁨⁩⁥‽⁀  ‴‬⁜‟ ⁃‣‧⁕‮ …‍⁨‴ ⁩,⁚⁖‫ ,‵ ⁀,‮⁝‣‣ ⁑  ⁂– ․, ‾‽ ‏⁁“⁗‸ ‾… ‹‡⁌⁎‸‘ ‡⁏⁌‪ ‵⁛ ‎⁨ ―⁦⁤⁄⁕