State Vectors of a Sum of Hamiltonians

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of state vectors in quantum mechanics, specifically regarding the sum of Hamiltonians for non-interacting particles as described in "Foundations of Quantum Physics." The key assertion is that the total Hamiltonian is the sum of individual Hamiltonians, leading to eigenkets that are products of individual eigenkets. This results in the total energy being the sum of the energy eigenvalues of each particle. The participants seek clarification and proof of this theorem in simpler terms.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hamiltonian mechanics
  • Familiarity with quantum state vectors and eigenkets
  • Knowledge of energy eigenvalues in quantum systems
  • Basic principles of non-interacting particle systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Hamiltonian for non-interacting particles in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the mathematical formulation of eigenkets and their properties
  • Explore the implications of the superposition principle in quantum systems
  • Investigate examples of Hamiltonians in multi-particle quantum systems
USEFUL FOR

Students of quantum mechanics, physicists working with Hamiltonian systems, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum theory.

harrydent
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm reading from my textbook "Foundations of Quantum Physics," and came across a statement that sounds trivial but I don't know how to prove. The passage can be found at http://books.google.com/books?id=3rxOHtn85qcC&pg=PA289#v=onepage&q=&f=false".

Because the particles do not interact, the Hamiltonian is the sum of individual Hamiltonians, one for each particle... The eigenkets are products of the individual eigenkets and the total energy is the sum of the energy eigenvalues of the particles.

Does anyone have any information on the proof of this theorem?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe someone could just explain it in plain English rather than a proof?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K