A doubt on the meaning of the bra ket product

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter amedeo_fisi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bra ket Doubt Product
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the bra-ket product in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of energy eigenstates and their orthogonality. Participants explore the implications of these products when operators are applied, as well as the meaning of superpositions of states.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the meaning of the product of two different states associated with different energy eigenvalues and what it signifies when an operator is applied.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on whether the product refers to states in different systems or a superposition in the same system.
  • A participant explains that the hermitian product of two states being zero indicates that the states are orthogonal, referencing the Born Rule to illustrate the expected values of observables.
  • Further elaboration is provided on how orthogonal states can be used to determine the probability of observing a system in a particular state without altering it.
  • Questions arise regarding the scenario where the system is in a superposition of two orthogonal states, prompting further application of the Born Rule to calculate probabilities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the bra-ket product and its implications, particularly concerning orthogonality and superposition. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential ambiguities in the definitions of states and operators, as well as the assumptions underlying the application of the Born Rule in different contexts.

amedeo_fisi
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone, I have thi doubt:
If I have a state, say psi1, associated with the energy eigenvalue E1, the integral over a certain region gives me the probability of finding the particle in that region with the specified energy E1. Now if I put an operator between the states I obtain its mean value of the observable. If now I have two different states psi1 and psi2, associated with the two energy E1 and E2, what does their product mean? And what's the meaning if I put inside an operator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by product? Do you mean different states in different systems or a superposition in the same system?

Thanks
Bill
 
I mean the hermitian product of two states. For example consider the hamiltonian eigenstates of the harmonic oscillator, what does it mean that the product of two different states is zero?
 
amedeo_fisi said:
I mean the hermitian product of two states. For example consider the hamiltonian eigenstates of the harmonic oscillator, what does it mean that the product of two different states is zero?

Obviously it means they are orthogonal - but I think you want a bit more than that.

Ok we need to go to the Born Rule. Given a state |u> the expected value of observing it with an observable O is E(O) = <u|O|u>. Now suppose we have two orthogonal states |b1> and |b2>. Consider the following observable O = |b1><b1| which is the observable that gives 1 if the system gives the state |b1> after observation (the 1 is interpreted as a yes, otherwise a no, and its easy to see this is the probability it will be in state |b1>) and apply the Born Rule to each state. E(O) = <b1|b1><b1|b1> = 1. So when it is observed with O it will always be in state |b1> after observation and always give a yes. In fact the state is not altered by the observation. Now apply it to |b2> and you get <b2|b1><b1|b2> = 0. Thus the state will always give no. The state of the system is also unchanged after. Similarly if you use the observable |b2><b2|.

What orthogonal states imply is we can find an observable that will give the probability of the system being in one of those states after observation and a yes. If its in that state it will always give a yes and not change the state. If its in the other it will never give a yes and not change the state.

Thanks
Bill
 
And what happen if the system is in the superposition of b1 and b2, say: |u> = a|b1> + c|b2>
 
amedeo_fisi said:
And what happen if the system is in the superposition of b1 and b2, say: |u> = a|b1> + c|b2>

Then go back to the Born Rule. Probability of it being in |b1> after the observation is (a*<b1| + c*<b2|)|b1><b1|(a|b1> + c|b2>) = |a|^2. You can work out |b2>.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K