Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

American Journal of Physics

The Heisenberg picture and the density operator

John Snygg

Published Oct 1, 1982• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

It is pointed out that the operators P and Q that appear in the Heisenberg picture are the quantum-mechanical analogs of the initial values p0 and q0 that appear in many computations from classical mechanics. It is then suggested that the introduction of a notation which emphasized that point would help students avoid some mistakes that have been made by some very competent physicists.

DOI
10.1119/1.12970

Related papers

A new look at the quantum Liouville theorem

Pui Tak Leung

We clarify certain confusions in the literature of the density operator in quantum mechanics, and demonstrate that the quantum Liouville theorem has the same form in both the Schrodinger and the Heisenberg pictures.Our starting point is to treat the density operator as an observable which has its specific time dependence in each of the two pictures.It is further shown that such a formulation will provide the exact correspondence between classical and quantum statistical mechanics with the Liouville theorem being interpreted as a conservation law, which is derivable from the equation of motion only in the quantum case.

•Aug 8, 2020•0 citations

The Invariant Form of Quantum Equations and the Schroedinger-Heisenberg Parallelism

Edward M. Corson

Some years have passed since the appearance of Dirac's striking interpretation of the Heisenberg-Schroedinger parallelism in the equations of motion, and yet it appears that there still remain obscure points which have led to misunderstanding. Although the Schroedinger method suffices to deal with many practical problems, the flexibility of the Dirac-Jordan representation theory, aside from its intrinsic unity and beauty, recommends it to general theoretical investigation. The present paper considers the invariant form of the equations of motion in relation to the Schroedinger-Heisenberg pictures of quantum mechanics insofar as the latter refer to the "pictured" intrinsic motion of states (vectors) and observables (Hermitian operators). The discussion is divided roughly into 5-sections: Operator and Vector Transforms, Contact Transformations, Heisenberg-Schroedinger Operators, Equations of Motion and Invariant Properties, and the Density Operator and Operator Spur. Where possible, quasi-geometrical diagrams are given to illustrate the relation and transition between the several "pictures of the motion."

Physical Review•Feb 1, 1947•0 citations

Various Pictures and Density Matrix

S. Rajasekar, R. Velusamy

In classical mechanics the state of a system is defined by the numerical values of a set of dynamical variables such as the position coordinates and the velocities. In quantum mechanics the state of a system at an instant is represented by a unit vector in a Hilbert space, where a set of axes are the eigenvectors of a complete set of observables. The description of quantum dynamics where the wave function is time-dependent and the operators describing the observables are time-independent is known as the Schrodinger picture. The use of total time derivative of operator that depends on the time evolution of the wave function as well as on any intrinsic time-dependence in the operators simplifies the development of quantum mechanics and allows the development to more closely follow the corresponding development of classical mechanics. The difference between the Schrodinger and Heisenberg pictures is best understood as the difference in the basic set of observables.

CRC Press eBooks•Sep 29, 2022•0 citations

2. Basic quantum physics

Arnold Neumaier

Quantum physics consists of a formal core that is universally agreed upon (basically being a piece of mathematics with suggestive names for concepts matching related concepts of experimental culture) and an interpretational halo (trying to make this relation more precise) that remains highly disputed even after more than 90 years of modern quantum physics. The latter is the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Part II), where many interpretations coexist and compete for the attention of those interested in what quantum physics really means. In this chapter, an axiomatic introduction to the undisputed formal core of quantum physics is given. The axioms described present nonrelativistic quantum statistical mechanics in the Schrödinger picture. The relativistic case is outside the scope of these axioms, as it must be treated by quantum field theory; see Chapter 7. As in any axiomatic setting (necessary for a formal discipline), there are a number of different but equivalent sets of axioms or postulates that can be used to define formal quantum physics. Since they are equivalent, their choice is a matter of convenience. The choice presented here is a formulation featuring three aspects: It emphasises the similarity of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, gives most direct access to statistical mechanics, and is free from allusions to measurement. The reason for the first is that this similarity serves as a guide to meaning. From the axiomatic setting for quantum mechanics presented below, classical mechanics (in the Koopman setting discussed in Section 7.10) is obtained by simply restricting the operators to be diagonal, so that all operations happen pointwise on the diagonal elements. Thus, multiplication is commutative, and one can identify operators and functions. In particular, the density operator degenerates into a probability density. Therefore, the quantum case appears as a generalization of the classical case allowing for noncommutativity, so that both q-observables and the density operator are (usually infinite-dimensional) operators. The reason for the second is that statistical mechanics is the main tool for applications of quantum physics to the macroscopic systems we are familiar with. The reason for the third is that realistic measurements constitute a complex process involving macroscopic detectors, hence should be explained by quantum statistical mechanics rather than be part of the axiomatic foundations themselves. (This is in marked contrast to other foundations, and distinguishes the present system of axioms.)

De Gruyter eBooks•Oct 24, 2019•0 citations

Schrödinger picture, Heisenberg picture and probabilistic aspects

Giampiero V. M. Esposito, Giuseppe Marmo, Gennaro Miele +1 more

This chapter begins by exploiting the Einstein–de Broglie relation and the notion of symbol. The following steps are the local and global conservation laws associated with the Schrödinger equation, probabilistic interpretation of the wave function and probability distribution, the spreading of wave packets and transformation properties of wave functions. In the last part, the Heisenberg picture is outlined at an introductory level. From classical to wave mechanics In the previous chapter we have seen how to go from wave equations on space–time to Hamilton equations on phase space by means of an appropriate approximation requirement on wave solutions. In more formal language, we could say we have considered a procedure to associate a Hamiltonian ordinary differential equation on phase space starting with a partial differential equation on configuration space. This association produces a correspondence between differential operators and polynomials on phase space, which relies on the notion of symbol (see below). Now we are aiming to pass from a function on phase space, i.e. the classical Hamiltonian, to an operator which, by analogy, is called the Hamiltonian operator. Such a transition is physically non-trivial because it amounts to building a wave equation from the equation on rays. From the formal point of view it appears to contain some ambiguities. Such a transition is always possible if polynomials in p have constant coefficients.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 31, 2014•0 citations

Limitations on the use of the Heisenberg picture

J. D. Franson, R. A. Brewster

The Schrodinger and Heisenberg pictures are equivalent formulations of quantum mechanics in the sense that they give the same expectation value for any operator. We consider a sequence of two or more unitary transformations and show that the Heisenberg operator produced after the first transformation cannot be viewed as the input to the second transformation. The experimental consequences of this are illustrated by several examples in quantum optics.

•Nov 15, 2018•1 citation
It is pointed out that the operators P and Q that appear in the Heisenberg picture are the quantum-mechanical analogs of the initial values p0 and q0 that appear in many computations from classical mechanics. It is then suggested that the introduction of a notation which emphasized that point would help students avoid some mistakes that have been made by some very competent physicists.
We clarify certain confusions in the literature of the density operator in quantum mechanics, and demonstrate that the quantum Liouville theorem has the same form in both the Schrodinger and the Heisenberg pictures.Our starting point is to treat the density operator as an observable which has its specific time dependence in each of the two pictures.It is further shown that such a formulation will provide the exact correspondence between classical and quantum statistical mechanics with the Liouville theorem being interpreted as a conservation law, which is derivable from the equation of motion only in the quantum case.
Some years have passed since the appearance of Dirac's striking interpretation of the Heisenberg-Schroedinger parallelism in the equations of motion, and yet it appears that there still remain obscure points which have led to misunderstanding. Although the Schroedinger method suffices to deal with many practical problems, the flexibility of the Dirac-Jordan representation theory, aside from its intrinsic unity and beauty, recommends it to general theoretical investigation. The present paper considers the invariant form of the equations of motion in relation to the Schroedinger-Heisenberg pictures of quantum mechanics insofar as the latter refer to the "pictured" intrinsic motion of states (vectors) and observables (Hermitian operators). The discussion is divided roughly into 5-sections: Operator and Vector Transforms, Contact Transformations, Heisenberg-Schroedinger Operators, Equations of Motion and Invariant Properties, and the Density Operator and Operator Spur. Where possible, quasi-geometrical diagrams are given to illustrate the relation and transition between the several "pictures of the motion."
In classical mechanics the state of a system is defined by the numerical values of a set of dynamical variables such as the position coordinates and the velocities. In quantum mechanics the state of a system at an instant is represented by a unit vector in a Hilbert space, where a set of axes are the eigenvectors of a complete set of observables. The description of quantum dynamics where the wave function is time-dependent and the operators describing the observables are time-independent is known as the Schrodinger picture. The use of total time derivative of operator that depends on the time evolution of the wave function as well as on any intrinsic time-dependence in the operators simplifies the development of quantum mechanics and allows the development to more closely follow the corresponding development of classical mechanics. The difference between the Schrodinger and Heisenberg pictures is best understood as the difference in the basic set of observables.
Quantum physics consists of a formal core that is universally agreed upon (basically being a piece of mathematics with suggestive names for concepts matching related concepts of experimental culture) and an interpretational halo (trying to make this relation more precise) that remains highly disputed even after more than 90 years of modern quantum physics. The latter is the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Part II), where many interpretations coexist and compete for the attention of those interested in what quantum physics really means. In this chapter, an axiomatic introduction to the undisputed formal core of quantum physics is given. The axioms described present nonrelativistic quantum statistical mechanics in the Schrödinger picture. The relativistic case is outside the scope of these axioms, as it must be treated by quantum field theory; see Chapter 7. As in any axiomatic setting (necessary for a formal discipline), there are a number of different but equivalent sets of axioms or postulates that can be used to define formal quantum physics. Since they are equivalent, their choice is a matter of convenience. The choice presented here is a formulation featuring three aspects: It emphasises the similarity of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, gives most direct access to statistical mechanics, and is free from allusions to measurement. The reason for the first is that this similarity serves as a guide to meaning. From the axiomatic setting for quantum mechanics presented below, classical mechanics (in the Koopman setting discussed in Section 7.10) is obtained by simply restricting the operators to be diagonal, so that all operations happen pointwise on the diagonal elements. Thus, multiplication is commutative, and one can identify operators and functions. In particular, the density operator degenerates into a probability density. Therefore, the quantum case appears as a generalization of the classical case allowing for noncommutativity, so that both q-observables and the density operator are (usually infinite-dimensional) operators. The reason for the second is that statistical mechanics is the main tool for applications of quantum physics to the macroscopic systems we are familiar with. The reason for the third is that realistic measurements constitute a complex process involving macroscopic detectors, hence should be explained by quantum statistical mechanics rather than be part of the axiomatic foundations themselves. (This is in marked contrast to other foundations, and distinguishes the present system of axioms.)
This chapter begins by exploiting the Einstein–de Broglie relation and the notion of symbol. The following steps are the local and global conservation laws associated with the Schrödinger equation, probabilistic interpretation of the wave function and probability distribution, the spreading of wave packets and transformation properties of wave functions. In the last part, the Heisenberg picture is outlined at an introductory level. From classical to wave mechanics In the previous chapter we have seen how to go from wave equations on space–time to Hamilton equations on phase space by means of an appropriate approximation requirement on wave solutions. In more formal language, we could say we have considered a procedure to associate a Hamiltonian ordinary differential equation on phase space starting with a partial differential equation on configuration space. This association produces a correspondence between differential operators and polynomials on phase space, which relies on the notion of symbol (see below). Now we are aiming to pass from a function on phase space, i.e. the classical Hamiltonian, to an operator which, by analogy, is called the Hamiltonian operator. Such a transition is physically non-trivial because it amounts to building a wave equation from the equation on rays. From the formal point of view it appears to contain some ambiguities. Such a transition is always possible if polynomials in p have constant coefficients.