arXiv:0711.1078

Comment on "Reply to Comment on Time-dependent Quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the Unitary Quantum Evolution"

Mostafazadeh, Ali

Published Nov 7, 2007• 4 citations

Abstract

I point out that if one defines the operator $U_R(t)$ as done by M. Znojil in his reply [arXiv:0711.0514v1] to my comment [arXiv:0711.0137v1] and also accepts the validity of the defining relation of $U_R(t)$ as given in his paper [arXiv:0710.5653v1], one finds that the time-evolution of the associated quantum system is not governed by the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian operator $H$ but an operator $H'$ which differs from $H$ if the metric operator is time-dependent. In the latter case this effective Hamiltonian $H'$ is not observable. This is consistent with the conclusions of my paper [Phys. Lett. B 650, 208 (2007), arXiv:0706.1872v2] which allow for unitary time-evolution generated by unobservable Hamiltonians.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.0711.1078

Related papers

Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Mostafazadeh, Ali

arXiv:0711.0137Nov 1, 20077 citations

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

arXiv:0711.0514Nov 5, 20076 citations

Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitarity of quantum evolution

Miloslav Znojil

arXiv:0710.5653Oct 30, 20079 citations

Unitary quantum evolution for time-dependent quasi-Hermitian systems with nonobservable Hamiltonians

Andreas Fring, M. H. Y. Moussa

arXiv:1511.08092Physical Review AApr 20, 2016120 citations

On the pseudo-Hermitian invariant method for the time-dependent Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians

Boubakeur Khantoul, Abdelhafid Bounames, Mustapha Maamache

Oct 28, 20163 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Solution of the Schrödinger equation for the time-dependent linear potential’ ”

I. Guedes

In this reply I discuss further the misconception in my paper [Phys. Rev. A 63, 034102 (2001)] related to the solution of the Schr\"odinger equation for a particle in a time-dependent linear potential.

Physical Review AJul 8, 200318 citations

arXiv:0711.1078

Comment on "Reply to Comment on Time-dependent Quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the Unitary Quantum Evolution"

Mostafazadeh, Ali

Published Nov 7, 2007• 4 citations

arXiv HTML PDF

Abstract

I point out that if one defines the operator

U_R(t)

as done by M. Znojil in his reply [arXiv:0711.0514v1] to my comment [arXiv:0711.0137v1] and also accepts the validity of the defining relation of

U_R(t)

as given in his paper [arXiv:0710.5653v1], one finds that the time-evolution of the associated quantum system is not governed by the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian operator

H

but an operator

H'

which differs from

H

if the metric operator is time-dependent. In the latter case this effective Hamiltonian

H'

is not observable. This is consistent with the conclusions of my paper [Phys. Lett. B 650, 208 (2007), arXiv:0706.1872v2] which allow for unitary time-evolution generated by unobservable Hamiltonians.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.0711.1078

Related papers

Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Mostafazadeh, Ali

In arXiv:0710.5653v1 M. Znojil claims that he has found and corrected an error in my paper: [Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007), arXiv:0706.1872v2] and that it is possible to escape its main conclusion, namely that the unitarity of the time-evolution and observability of the Hamiltonian imply time-independence of the metric operator. In this note I give a very short calculation showing that the analysis given by M. Znojil also leads to the same conclusion as of my above-mentioned paper. This is actually a reconfirmation of the validity of the results of the latter paper.In arXiv:0710.5653v1 M. Znojil claims that he has found and corrected an error in my paper: [Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007), arXiv:0706.1872v2] and that it is possible to escape its main conclusion, namely that the unitarity of the time-evolution and observability of the Hamiltonian imply time-independence of the metric operator. In this note I give a very short calculation showing that the analysis given by M. Znojil also leads to the same conclusion as of my above-mentioned paper. This is actually a reconfirmation of the validity of the results of the latter paper.

arXiv:0711.0137Nov 1, 20077 citations

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.

arXiv:0711.0514Nov 5, 20076 citations

Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitarity of quantum evolution

Miloslav Znojil

We show that the consequences of an introduction of a manifest time-dependence in a pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonian H=H(t) are by far less drastic than suggested by A. Mostafazadeh in Phys. Lett. B 650 (2007) 208 (arXiv:0706.1872v2 [quant-ph]). In particular, the unitarity of the evolution does not necessitate the time-independence of the metric $η_+=η_+(t)$ .We show that the consequences of an introduction of a manifest time-dependence in a pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonian H=H(t) are by far less drastic than suggested by A. Mostafazadeh in Phys. Lett. B 650 (2007) 208 (arXiv:0706.1872v2 [quant-ph]). In particular, the unitarity of the evolution does not necessitate the time-independence of the metric $η_+=η_+(t)$.

arXiv:0710.5653Oct 30, 20079 citations

Unitary quantum evolution for time-dependent quasi-Hermitian systems with nonobservable Hamiltonians

Andreas Fring, M. H. Y. Moussa

It has been argued that it is incompatible to maintain unitary time evolution for time-dependent non-Hermitian Hamiltonians when the metric operator is explicitly time dependent. We demonstrate here that the time-dependent Dyson equation and the time-dependent quasi-Hermiticity relation can be solved consistently in such a scenario for a time-dependent Dyson map and time-dependent metric operator, respectively. These solutions are obtained at the cost of rendering the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian to be a nonobservable operator as it ceases to be quasi-Hermitian when the metric becomes time dependent.It has been argued that it is incompatible to maintain unitary time evolution for time-dependent non-Hermitian Hamiltonians when the metric operator is explicitly time dependent. We demonstrate here that the time-dependent Dyson equation and the time-dependent quasi-Hermiticity relation can be solved consistently in such a scenario for a time-dependent Dyson map and time-dependent metric operator, respectively. These solutions are obtained at the cost of rendering the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian to be a nonobservable operator as it ceases to be quasi-Hermitian when the metric becomes time dependent.

arXiv:1511.08092Physical Review AApr 20, 2016120 citations

On the pseudo-Hermitian invariant method for the time-dependent Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians

Boubakeur Khantoul, Abdelhafid Bounames, Mustapha Maamache

We propose a scheme to deal with certain time-dependent non-Hermitian Hamiltonian operators $H(t)$ that generate a real phase in their time-evolution. This involves the use of invariant operators $I_{PH}(t)$ that are pseudo-Hermitian with respect to the time-dependent metric operator and which implies that the dynamics is governed by unitary time evolution. Furthermore, $H(t)$ is not generally quasi-Hermitian and does not define an observable of the system but $I_{PH}(t)$ obeys a quasi-hermiticity transformation as in the completely time-independent Hamiltonian systems case. The harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent frequency under the action of a complex time-dependent linear potential is considered as an illustrative example.We propose a scheme to deal with certain time-dependent non-Hermitian Hamiltonian operators $H(t)$ that generate a real phase in their time-evolution. This involves the use of invariant operators $I_{PH}(t)$ that are pseudo-Hermitian with respect to the time-dependent metric operator and which implies that the dynamics is governed by unitary time evolution. Furthermore, $H(t)$ is not generally quasi-Hermitian and does not define an observable of the system but $I_{PH}(t)$ obeys a quasi-hermiticity transformation as in the completely time-independent Hamiltonian systems case. The harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent frequency under the action of a complex time-dependent linear potential is considered as an illustrative example.

Oct 28, 20163 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Solution of the Schrödinger equation for the time-dependent linear potential’ ”

I. Guedes

Physical Review AJul 8, 200318 citations

I point out that if one defines the operator

U_R(t)

as done by M. Znojil in his reply [arXiv:0711.0514v1] to my comment [arXiv:0711.0137v1] and also accepts the validity of the defining relation of

U_R(t)

as given in his paper [arXiv:0710.5653v1], one finds that the time-evolution of the associated quantum system is not governed by the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian operator

H

but an operator

H'

which differs from

H

if the metric operator is time-dependent. In the latter case this effective Hamiltonian

H'

η_+=η_+(t)

We propose a scheme to deal with certain time-dependent non-Hermitian Hamiltonian operators

H(t)

that generate a real phase in their time-evolution. This involves the use of invariant operators

I_{PH}(t)

that are pseudo-Hermitian with respect to the time-dependent metric operator and which implies that the dynamics is governed by unitary time evolution. Furthermore,

H(t)

is not generally quasi-Hermitian and does not define an observable of the system but

I_{PH}(t)

obeys a quasi-hermiticity transformation as in the completely time-independent Hamiltonian systems case. The harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent frequency under the action of a complex time-dependent linear potential is considered as an illustrative example.