Expectation value of operators with non-zero Hamiltonian commutatorsExpectation value - Zetilli vs GriffithExpectation value of position in infinite square wellExpectation value of momentumHarmonic Oscillator Expectation ValueWhy is the expectation value of ground state electron momentum zero?Question regarding translation operators in momentum and positionExpectation value in second quantizationExpectation value of a ladder operatorFind expectation value for combination of states

How to draw a Venn diagram for X - (Y intersect Z)?

Calculate the limit without l'Hopital rule

Good notation to require that z ≠ 0, -1, -2, -3, ...

Why does an orbit become hyperbolic when total orbital energy is positive?

An ES6 array of numbers - Double last number, delete the first number

Finding partition with maximum number of edges between sets

Why is the UK still pressing on with Brexit?

Can a business put whatever they want into a contract?

What would happen if Protagoras v Euathlus were heard in court today?

What do these two notes together mean?

How do we know that black holes are spinning?

Why any infinite sequence of real functions can be generated from a finite set through composition?

A command to output each line forward then backwards

How can I prevent my AC condensate pipe from making my soil soggy?

In what sequence should an advanced civilization teach technology to medieval society to maximize rate of adoption?

geschafft or geschaffen? which one is past participle of schaffen?

Other than good shoes and a stick, what are some ways to preserve your knees on long hikes?

Are there objective criteria for classifying consonance v. dissonance?

What 68-pin connector is this on my 2.5" solid state drive?

How to give my students a straightedge instead of a ruler

Is there any reason to concentrate on the Thunderous Smite spell after using its effects?

Why does the speed of sound decrease at high altitudes although the air density decreases?

What is a "major country" as named in Bernie Sanders' Healthcare debate answers?

Seven Places at Once - Another Google Earth Challenge?



Expectation value of operators with non-zero Hamiltonian commutators


Expectation value - Zetilli vs GriffithExpectation value of position in infinite square wellExpectation value of momentumHarmonic Oscillator Expectation ValueWhy is the expectation value of ground state electron momentum zero?Question regarding translation operators in momentum and positionExpectation value in second quantizationExpectation value of a ladder operatorFind expectation value for combination of states






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








5












$begingroup$


I'm a bit embarrassed because there seems to be an obvious thing that I'm missing, but I can't see what it is.



Consider $[mathcalH,A]=B$, where $A$ and $B$ are some operators and $mathcalH$ is the Hamiltonian. Let's look at the expectation value of $mathcalHA$, and let's use energy eigenstates.



$$langle psi|mathcalHA|psirangle=langle psi|B+AmathcalH|psirangle=langle psi|B|psirangle+langle psi|AmathcalH|psirangle=langle Brangle+E langle Arangle.$$



But, can't I also write



$$langle psi|mathcalHA|psirangle=left(langle psi|mathcalHright) left(A|psirangleright)=E langle psi|A|psirangle=E langle Arangle,$$



where I've made use of $mathcalH| psi rangle=E |psirangle Rightarrow langle psi|mathcalH=E langle psi|?$



I don't see what's wrong with my argument, but I feel like something is wrong because I get different answers.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This is all meaningless. There is no way to expect that the domains of A and B contain the eigenvectors of H.
    $endgroup$
    – DanielC
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DanielC That is a bit harsh, given that we could perfectly well postulate that we're in a finite-dimensional space of states where there are no domain issues.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago

















5












$begingroup$


I'm a bit embarrassed because there seems to be an obvious thing that I'm missing, but I can't see what it is.



Consider $[mathcalH,A]=B$, where $A$ and $B$ are some operators and $mathcalH$ is the Hamiltonian. Let's look at the expectation value of $mathcalHA$, and let's use energy eigenstates.



$$langle psi|mathcalHA|psirangle=langle psi|B+AmathcalH|psirangle=langle psi|B|psirangle+langle psi|AmathcalH|psirangle=langle Brangle+E langle Arangle.$$



But, can't I also write



$$langle psi|mathcalHA|psirangle=left(langle psi|mathcalHright) left(A|psirangleright)=E langle psi|A|psirangle=E langle Arangle,$$



where I've made use of $mathcalH| psi rangle=E |psirangle Rightarrow langle psi|mathcalH=E langle psi|?$



I don't see what's wrong with my argument, but I feel like something is wrong because I get different answers.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This is all meaningless. There is no way to expect that the domains of A and B contain the eigenvectors of H.
    $endgroup$
    – DanielC
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DanielC That is a bit harsh, given that we could perfectly well postulate that we're in a finite-dimensional space of states where there are no domain issues.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago













5












5








5





$begingroup$


I'm a bit embarrassed because there seems to be an obvious thing that I'm missing, but I can't see what it is.



Consider $[mathcalH,A]=B$, where $A$ and $B$ are some operators and $mathcalH$ is the Hamiltonian. Let's look at the expectation value of $mathcalHA$, and let's use energy eigenstates.



$$langle psi|mathcalHA|psirangle=langle psi|B+AmathcalH|psirangle=langle psi|B|psirangle+langle psi|AmathcalH|psirangle=langle Brangle+E langle Arangle.$$



But, can't I also write



$$langle psi|mathcalHA|psirangle=left(langle psi|mathcalHright) left(A|psirangleright)=E langle psi|A|psirangle=E langle Arangle,$$



where I've made use of $mathcalH| psi rangle=E |psirangle Rightarrow langle psi|mathcalH=E langle psi|?$



I don't see what's wrong with my argument, but I feel like something is wrong because I get different answers.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I'm a bit embarrassed because there seems to be an obvious thing that I'm missing, but I can't see what it is.



Consider $[mathcalH,A]=B$, where $A$ and $B$ are some operators and $mathcalH$ is the Hamiltonian. Let's look at the expectation value of $mathcalHA$, and let's use energy eigenstates.



$$langle psi|mathcalHA|psirangle=langle psi|B+AmathcalH|psirangle=langle psi|B|psirangle+langle psi|AmathcalH|psirangle=langle Brangle+E langle Arangle.$$



But, can't I also write



$$langle psi|mathcalHA|psirangle=left(langle psi|mathcalHright) left(A|psirangleright)=E langle psi|A|psirangle=E langle Arangle,$$



where I've made use of $mathcalH| psi rangle=E |psirangle Rightarrow langle psi|mathcalH=E langle psi|?$



I don't see what's wrong with my argument, but I feel like something is wrong because I get different answers.







quantum-mechanics






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 9 hours ago









PtheguyPtheguy

2872 silver badges10 bronze badges




2872 silver badges10 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    This is all meaningless. There is no way to expect that the domains of A and B contain the eigenvectors of H.
    $endgroup$
    – DanielC
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DanielC That is a bit harsh, given that we could perfectly well postulate that we're in a finite-dimensional space of states where there are no domain issues.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    This is all meaningless. There is no way to expect that the domains of A and B contain the eigenvectors of H.
    $endgroup$
    – DanielC
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DanielC That is a bit harsh, given that we could perfectly well postulate that we're in a finite-dimensional space of states where there are no domain issues.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago















$begingroup$
This is all meaningless. There is no way to expect that the domains of A and B contain the eigenvectors of H.
$endgroup$
– DanielC
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
This is all meaningless. There is no way to expect that the domains of A and B contain the eigenvectors of H.
$endgroup$
– DanielC
9 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@DanielC That is a bit harsh, given that we could perfectly well postulate that we're in a finite-dimensional space of states where there are no domain issues.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
@DanielC That is a bit harsh, given that we could perfectly well postulate that we're in a finite-dimensional space of states where there are no domain issues.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind
9 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














$begingroup$

Let's assume both $A$ and $B$ are Hermitian operators, since otherwise trying to take their expectation value doesn't make sense at all.



  1. If $H$ and $A$ do not commute, then their product $HA$ is not an observable, since $(HA)^dagger = A^dagger H^dagger = AH neq HA$, so $HA$ is not Hermitian. So it is questionable what you're trying to compute here in the first place from a physical viewpoint.


  2. Your argument is not wrong, it simply shows that $langle Brangle = 0$ for all eigenstates of $H$. In light of Ehrenfest's theorem ($fracmathrmdmathrmdtlangle Arangle propto langle [H,A]rangle$ for not explicitly time-dependent $A$), this is not surprising: The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are stationary states, so their expectation value for the commutator of an observable with the Hamiltonian needs to be zero, otherwise the expectation value (and thus the state) would not be stationary.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Ok, so if my argument isn't wrong, then let's consider the following: At $t=0$, $langle A rangle=a_0$ is known. What is the time dependence of $langle A rangle$? On the one hand, $langle psi(0)|U(t)^daggerAU(t)|psi(0)rangle = a_0$, since we can apply my argument above to each term if we expand the temporal unitary operator. On the other hand, $d/dt langle A rangle propto langle [H,A] rangle$. So, if my argument above is correct, then the expectation value doesn't change and we should have $[H,A]=0$, but the problem says $A$ and $H$ don't commute. How do we resolve this?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy I do not understand your question. $langle [H,A]rangle = 0 $ for all eigenstates of $H$ does not imply $[H,A] = 0$.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I see, thank you for that clarification. That was one point I was missing. Still, if my argument in the original post is correct, then I get that the expectation value of an observable $A$ is time independent. That is, I arrive at $langle psi(t)|A|psi(t)rangle = langle psi(0)|A|psi(0)rangle$. Is this correct? Wouldn't the expectation value change over time since the states are evolving?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy Yes - which is entirely correct for an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, since these states are eigenstates of the time evolution and do not change (except for a phase)! You seem to be confusing yourself by thinking that this applies to all states - it does not, you explicitly restricted yourself to eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in your question.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    YES! Thank you. This now makes sense again.
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago


















0














$begingroup$

$$leftlangle Brightrangle =leftlangle left[H,Aright]rightrangle=Eleftlangle Arightrangle-leftlangle Arightrangle E=0$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    I mean, this does answer the question but really would be a lot better with a sentence or two explaining why it does.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    7 hours ago













Your Answer








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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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%2f502863%2fexpectation-value-of-operators-with-non-zero-hamiltonian-commutators%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









6














$begingroup$

Let's assume both $A$ and $B$ are Hermitian operators, since otherwise trying to take their expectation value doesn't make sense at all.



  1. If $H$ and $A$ do not commute, then their product $HA$ is not an observable, since $(HA)^dagger = A^dagger H^dagger = AH neq HA$, so $HA$ is not Hermitian. So it is questionable what you're trying to compute here in the first place from a physical viewpoint.


  2. Your argument is not wrong, it simply shows that $langle Brangle = 0$ for all eigenstates of $H$. In light of Ehrenfest's theorem ($fracmathrmdmathrmdtlangle Arangle propto langle [H,A]rangle$ for not explicitly time-dependent $A$), this is not surprising: The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are stationary states, so their expectation value for the commutator of an observable with the Hamiltonian needs to be zero, otherwise the expectation value (and thus the state) would not be stationary.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Ok, so if my argument isn't wrong, then let's consider the following: At $t=0$, $langle A rangle=a_0$ is known. What is the time dependence of $langle A rangle$? On the one hand, $langle psi(0)|U(t)^daggerAU(t)|psi(0)rangle = a_0$, since we can apply my argument above to each term if we expand the temporal unitary operator. On the other hand, $d/dt langle A rangle propto langle [H,A] rangle$. So, if my argument above is correct, then the expectation value doesn't change and we should have $[H,A]=0$, but the problem says $A$ and $H$ don't commute. How do we resolve this?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy I do not understand your question. $langle [H,A]rangle = 0 $ for all eigenstates of $H$ does not imply $[H,A] = 0$.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I see, thank you for that clarification. That was one point I was missing. Still, if my argument in the original post is correct, then I get that the expectation value of an observable $A$ is time independent. That is, I arrive at $langle psi(t)|A|psi(t)rangle = langle psi(0)|A|psi(0)rangle$. Is this correct? Wouldn't the expectation value change over time since the states are evolving?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy Yes - which is entirely correct for an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, since these states are eigenstates of the time evolution and do not change (except for a phase)! You seem to be confusing yourself by thinking that this applies to all states - it does not, you explicitly restricted yourself to eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in your question.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    YES! Thank you. This now makes sense again.
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago















6














$begingroup$

Let's assume both $A$ and $B$ are Hermitian operators, since otherwise trying to take their expectation value doesn't make sense at all.



  1. If $H$ and $A$ do not commute, then their product $HA$ is not an observable, since $(HA)^dagger = A^dagger H^dagger = AH neq HA$, so $HA$ is not Hermitian. So it is questionable what you're trying to compute here in the first place from a physical viewpoint.


  2. Your argument is not wrong, it simply shows that $langle Brangle = 0$ for all eigenstates of $H$. In light of Ehrenfest's theorem ($fracmathrmdmathrmdtlangle Arangle propto langle [H,A]rangle$ for not explicitly time-dependent $A$), this is not surprising: The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are stationary states, so their expectation value for the commutator of an observable with the Hamiltonian needs to be zero, otherwise the expectation value (and thus the state) would not be stationary.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Ok, so if my argument isn't wrong, then let's consider the following: At $t=0$, $langle A rangle=a_0$ is known. What is the time dependence of $langle A rangle$? On the one hand, $langle psi(0)|U(t)^daggerAU(t)|psi(0)rangle = a_0$, since we can apply my argument above to each term if we expand the temporal unitary operator. On the other hand, $d/dt langle A rangle propto langle [H,A] rangle$. So, if my argument above is correct, then the expectation value doesn't change and we should have $[H,A]=0$, but the problem says $A$ and $H$ don't commute. How do we resolve this?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy I do not understand your question. $langle [H,A]rangle = 0 $ for all eigenstates of $H$ does not imply $[H,A] = 0$.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I see, thank you for that clarification. That was one point I was missing. Still, if my argument in the original post is correct, then I get that the expectation value of an observable $A$ is time independent. That is, I arrive at $langle psi(t)|A|psi(t)rangle = langle psi(0)|A|psi(0)rangle$. Is this correct? Wouldn't the expectation value change over time since the states are evolving?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy Yes - which is entirely correct for an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, since these states are eigenstates of the time evolution and do not change (except for a phase)! You seem to be confusing yourself by thinking that this applies to all states - it does not, you explicitly restricted yourself to eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in your question.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    YES! Thank you. This now makes sense again.
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago













6














6










6







$begingroup$

Let's assume both $A$ and $B$ are Hermitian operators, since otherwise trying to take their expectation value doesn't make sense at all.



  1. If $H$ and $A$ do not commute, then their product $HA$ is not an observable, since $(HA)^dagger = A^dagger H^dagger = AH neq HA$, so $HA$ is not Hermitian. So it is questionable what you're trying to compute here in the first place from a physical viewpoint.


  2. Your argument is not wrong, it simply shows that $langle Brangle = 0$ for all eigenstates of $H$. In light of Ehrenfest's theorem ($fracmathrmdmathrmdtlangle Arangle propto langle [H,A]rangle$ for not explicitly time-dependent $A$), this is not surprising: The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are stationary states, so their expectation value for the commutator of an observable with the Hamiltonian needs to be zero, otherwise the expectation value (and thus the state) would not be stationary.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Let's assume both $A$ and $B$ are Hermitian operators, since otherwise trying to take their expectation value doesn't make sense at all.



  1. If $H$ and $A$ do not commute, then their product $HA$ is not an observable, since $(HA)^dagger = A^dagger H^dagger = AH neq HA$, so $HA$ is not Hermitian. So it is questionable what you're trying to compute here in the first place from a physical viewpoint.


  2. Your argument is not wrong, it simply shows that $langle Brangle = 0$ for all eigenstates of $H$. In light of Ehrenfest's theorem ($fracmathrmdmathrmdtlangle Arangle propto langle [H,A]rangle$ for not explicitly time-dependent $A$), this is not surprising: The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are stationary states, so their expectation value for the commutator of an observable with the Hamiltonian needs to be zero, otherwise the expectation value (and thus the state) would not be stationary.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 9 hours ago









ACuriousMindACuriousMind

76k18 gold badges139 silver badges356 bronze badges




76k18 gold badges139 silver badges356 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    Ok, so if my argument isn't wrong, then let's consider the following: At $t=0$, $langle A rangle=a_0$ is known. What is the time dependence of $langle A rangle$? On the one hand, $langle psi(0)|U(t)^daggerAU(t)|psi(0)rangle = a_0$, since we can apply my argument above to each term if we expand the temporal unitary operator. On the other hand, $d/dt langle A rangle propto langle [H,A] rangle$. So, if my argument above is correct, then the expectation value doesn't change and we should have $[H,A]=0$, but the problem says $A$ and $H$ don't commute. How do we resolve this?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy I do not understand your question. $langle [H,A]rangle = 0 $ for all eigenstates of $H$ does not imply $[H,A] = 0$.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I see, thank you for that clarification. That was one point I was missing. Still, if my argument in the original post is correct, then I get that the expectation value of an observable $A$ is time independent. That is, I arrive at $langle psi(t)|A|psi(t)rangle = langle psi(0)|A|psi(0)rangle$. Is this correct? Wouldn't the expectation value change over time since the states are evolving?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy Yes - which is entirely correct for an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, since these states are eigenstates of the time evolution and do not change (except for a phase)! You seem to be confusing yourself by thinking that this applies to all states - it does not, you explicitly restricted yourself to eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in your question.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    YES! Thank you. This now makes sense again.
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Ok, so if my argument isn't wrong, then let's consider the following: At $t=0$, $langle A rangle=a_0$ is known. What is the time dependence of $langle A rangle$? On the one hand, $langle psi(0)|U(t)^daggerAU(t)|psi(0)rangle = a_0$, since we can apply my argument above to each term if we expand the temporal unitary operator. On the other hand, $d/dt langle A rangle propto langle [H,A] rangle$. So, if my argument above is correct, then the expectation value doesn't change and we should have $[H,A]=0$, but the problem says $A$ and $H$ don't commute. How do we resolve this?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy I do not understand your question. $langle [H,A]rangle = 0 $ for all eigenstates of $H$ does not imply $[H,A] = 0$.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I see, thank you for that clarification. That was one point I was missing. Still, if my argument in the original post is correct, then I get that the expectation value of an observable $A$ is time independent. That is, I arrive at $langle psi(t)|A|psi(t)rangle = langle psi(0)|A|psi(0)rangle$. Is this correct? Wouldn't the expectation value change over time since the states are evolving?
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Ptheguy Yes - which is entirely correct for an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, since these states are eigenstates of the time evolution and do not change (except for a phase)! You seem to be confusing yourself by thinking that this applies to all states - it does not, you explicitly restricted yourself to eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in your question.
    $endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    YES! Thank you. This now makes sense again.
    $endgroup$
    – Ptheguy
    9 hours ago















$begingroup$
Ok, so if my argument isn't wrong, then let's consider the following: At $t=0$, $langle A rangle=a_0$ is known. What is the time dependence of $langle A rangle$? On the one hand, $langle psi(0)|U(t)^daggerAU(t)|psi(0)rangle = a_0$, since we can apply my argument above to each term if we expand the temporal unitary operator. On the other hand, $d/dt langle A rangle propto langle [H,A] rangle$. So, if my argument above is correct, then the expectation value doesn't change and we should have $[H,A]=0$, but the problem says $A$ and $H$ don't commute. How do we resolve this?
$endgroup$
– Ptheguy
9 hours ago





$begingroup$
Ok, so if my argument isn't wrong, then let's consider the following: At $t=0$, $langle A rangle=a_0$ is known. What is the time dependence of $langle A rangle$? On the one hand, $langle psi(0)|U(t)^daggerAU(t)|psi(0)rangle = a_0$, since we can apply my argument above to each term if we expand the temporal unitary operator. On the other hand, $d/dt langle A rangle propto langle [H,A] rangle$. So, if my argument above is correct, then the expectation value doesn't change and we should have $[H,A]=0$, but the problem says $A$ and $H$ don't commute. How do we resolve this?
$endgroup$
– Ptheguy
9 hours ago













$begingroup$
@Ptheguy I do not understand your question. $langle [H,A]rangle = 0 $ for all eigenstates of $H$ does not imply $[H,A] = 0$.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind
9 hours ago





$begingroup$
@Ptheguy I do not understand your question. $langle [H,A]rangle = 0 $ for all eigenstates of $H$ does not imply $[H,A] = 0$.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind
9 hours ago













$begingroup$
I see, thank you for that clarification. That was one point I was missing. Still, if my argument in the original post is correct, then I get that the expectation value of an observable $A$ is time independent. That is, I arrive at $langle psi(t)|A|psi(t)rangle = langle psi(0)|A|psi(0)rangle$. Is this correct? Wouldn't the expectation value change over time since the states are evolving?
$endgroup$
– Ptheguy
9 hours ago





$begingroup$
I see, thank you for that clarification. That was one point I was missing. Still, if my argument in the original post is correct, then I get that the expectation value of an observable $A$ is time independent. That is, I arrive at $langle psi(t)|A|psi(t)rangle = langle psi(0)|A|psi(0)rangle$. Is this correct? Wouldn't the expectation value change over time since the states are evolving?
$endgroup$
– Ptheguy
9 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
@Ptheguy Yes - which is entirely correct for an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, since these states are eigenstates of the time evolution and do not change (except for a phase)! You seem to be confusing yourself by thinking that this applies to all states - it does not, you explicitly restricted yourself to eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in your question.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind
9 hours ago





$begingroup$
@Ptheguy Yes - which is entirely correct for an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, since these states are eigenstates of the time evolution and do not change (except for a phase)! You seem to be confusing yourself by thinking that this applies to all states - it does not, you explicitly restricted yourself to eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in your question.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind
9 hours ago













$begingroup$
YES! Thank you. This now makes sense again.
$endgroup$
– Ptheguy
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
YES! Thank you. This now makes sense again.
$endgroup$
– Ptheguy
9 hours ago













0














$begingroup$

$$leftlangle Brightrangle =leftlangle left[H,Aright]rightrangle=Eleftlangle Arightrangle-leftlangle Arightrangle E=0$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    I mean, this does answer the question but really would be a lot better with a sentence or two explaining why it does.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    7 hours ago















0














$begingroup$

$$leftlangle Brightrangle =leftlangle left[H,Aright]rightrangle=Eleftlangle Arightrangle-leftlangle Arightrangle E=0$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    I mean, this does answer the question but really would be a lot better with a sentence or two explaining why it does.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    7 hours ago













0














0










0







$begingroup$

$$leftlangle Brightrangle =leftlangle left[H,Aright]rightrangle=Eleftlangle Arightrangle-leftlangle Arightrangle E=0$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



$$leftlangle Brightrangle =leftlangle left[H,Aright]rightrangle=Eleftlangle Arightrangle-leftlangle Arightrangle E=0$$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 9 hours ago









olegoleg

3941 silver badge8 bronze badges




3941 silver badge8 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    I mean, this does answer the question but really would be a lot better with a sentence or two explaining why it does.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    7 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    I mean, this does answer the question but really would be a lot better with a sentence or two explaining why it does.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    7 hours ago















$begingroup$
I mean, this does answer the question but really would be a lot better with a sentence or two explaining why it does.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
I mean, this does answer the question but really would be a lot better with a sentence or two explaining why it does.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
7 hours ago


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f502863%2fexpectation-value-of-operators-with-non-zero-hamiltonian-commutators%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

Sahara Skak | Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: SaharaWikivoyage raisfeerer: Sahara26° N, 13° O

The fall designs the understood secretary. Looking glass Science Shock Discovery Hot Everybody Loves Raymond Smile 곳 서비스 성실하다 Defas Kaloolon Definition: To combine or impregnate with sulphur or any of its compounds as to sulphurize caoutchouc in vulcanizing Flame colored Reason Useful Thin Help 갖다 유명하다 낙엽 장례식 Country Iron Definition: A fencer a gladiator one who exhibits his skill in the use of the sword Definition: The American black throated bunting Spiza Americana Nostalgic Needy Method to my madness 시키다 평가되다 전부 소설가 우아하다 Argument Tin Feeling Representative Gym Music Gaur Chicken 일쑤 코치 편 학생증 The harbor values the sugar. Vasagle Yammoe Enstatite Definition: Capable of being limited Road Neighborly Five Refer Built Kangaroo 비비다 Degree Release Bargain Horse 하루 형님 유교 석 동부 괴롭히다 경제력

19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу