Completeness of basis in quantum mechanics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of completeness of basis in quantum mechanics (QM) and its relation to linear algebra. It establishes that a complete set of basis vectors allows any vector to be expressed as a linear combination of those basis vectors, represented mathematically by the relation Σ Mij |i⟩⟨j| = I, where |i⟩ denotes the basis and I is the identity matrix. The equivalence of definitions in QM and linear algebra is affirmed, emphasizing that both contexts share a singular definition of completeness when properly understood. Recommended reading includes Sakurai's Book on Quantum Mechanics for further clarification.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with linear algebra concepts, specifically basis vectors
  • Knowledge of operator representation in quantum mechanics
  • Basic mathematical notation and summation conventions
NEXT STEPS
  • Read Sakurai's Book on Quantum Mechanics, focusing on introductory chapters
  • Study the mathematical foundations of linear algebra, particularly basis completeness
  • Explore operator theory in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the implications of completeness in quantum state representation
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in quantum mechanics, physicists interested in the mathematical foundations of QM, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the relationship between linear algebra and quantum theory.

wowowo2006
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
In a QM course,
I learn that an operator can be represented by basis vectors
If the basis vector is complete, the following relation holds
There exist coefficient Mij such that
Sigma Mij |i > < j|. = I , |i> is the basis! and I is the identity matrix

But isn't that in linear algebra
We call the set of basis is complete when
Any vector can be expressed into their linear combination

I wonder why here we seems have 2 definition of completeness
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I recommend reading of Sakurai's Book on QM - read the introductory chapters.
 
I wonder why here we seems have 2 definition of completeness
There is only one definition if the two renderings are equivalent, right ? And they are equivalent!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
710
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K