Eigenkets belonging to a range of eigenvalues

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Spin One
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    eigenvalues range
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of a general ket in quantum mechanics using a basis of eigenkets associated with a continuous range of eigenvalues. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and implications of using integrals in this context, particularly in relation to discrete versus continuous eigenvalue spectra.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the role of the integral in representing a general ket using eigenkets from a continuous range of eigenvalues, comparing it to a sum in the discrete case and expressing confusion about the meaning of the infinitesimal change near the eigenvalue.
  • Another participant references a related thread on Rigged Hilbert Spaces, suggesting it may provide additional insights into the relationship between continuous and discrete bases.
  • A participant proposes that the continuous basis can be seen as a limiting case of the discrete basis, noting that normalization conventions change when transitioning between the two.
  • Concerns are raised about the conditions necessary for the continuum limit to be valid, including assumptions about the ordering and completeness of eigenvalues and eigenstates.
  • There is a discussion on the normalization of kets in the continuous case, with a participant suggesting that if the coefficients change slowly, a new ket can be defined with a different normalization that leads to an integral representation.
  • One participant explains that the differential dλ is introduced to ensure the product between each eigenket and dλ remains finite, given the infinite length of the eigenkets in the limit of Δλ approaching zero.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the use of infinitesimals in this context, suggesting that a proper understanding requires studying distribution theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and agreement regarding the mathematical treatment of eigenkets and the implications of using integrals versus sums. There is no consensus on the interpretation of infinitesimals or the normalization of kets in the continuous case.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of the transition from discrete to continuous eigenvalues, including assumptions about the behavior of eigenstates and the implications of normalization conventions.

Spin One
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
When one wants to represent a general ket in a basis consisting of eigenkets each attributed to an eigenvalue in a range, say from a to b, why does one take the integral of said kets from a to b w.r.t. the eigenvalues?
upload_2018-6-25_13-3-42.png

I understand that the integral here plays a role analogous to a sum in the case where a general ket is expressed in terms of eigenkets belonging to discrete eigenvalues, but I don't understand why each vector is multiplied by an infinitesimal change near the eigenvalue it belongs to. Interpreting this integral as the limit of a sum we get:
[P>=Σ[ξ>Δξ (lim.Δξ→0)
where I do not understand the role of Δξ.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-6-25_13-3-42.png
    upload_2018-6-25_13-3-42.png
    657 bytes · Views: 837
Physics news on Phys.org
I looked over the thread about Rigged Hilbert Spaces, and I'm not sure that it completely explained the relationship between continuous and discrete bases.

In a non-rigorous way, you can think of the continuous basis as a limiting case of the discrete basis. However, in going from discrete to continuous, the normalization convention for basis elements changes.

Let me illustrate. Suppose you have an operator ##\Lambda## with discrete eigenvalues ##\lambda_j##. I think in order for the continuum limit to make sense int the most straightforward way, you need to assume that ##\lambda_{j+1} > \lambda_j##, and that there are infinitely many ##\lambda_j##, and that the corresponding eigenstates ##|n\rangle## form a complete orthonormal basis. That means that
  1. If ##n \neq m##, then ##\langle n|m\rangle = 0##
  2. ##\langle n|n\rangle = 1##
  3. If ##|\psi\rangle## is a properly normalized state, then ##|\psi\rangle = \sum_n \langle n|\psi\rangle |n\rangle##
  4. ##\sum_n |\langle n|\psi\rangle|^2 = 1##
Now, if the coefficients ##\langle n|\psi\rangle## change slowly with ##n## (and maybe we also have to assume that ##(\Delta \lambda)_n \equiv \lambda_{n+1} - \lambda_n## remains bounded? I'm not sure...) then we can define a new ket with a different normalization:

##|\lambda_n\rangle \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{(\Delta \lambda)_n}} |n\rangle##

In terms of the ##|\lambda_n\rangle##, we have:

##|\psi\rangle = \sum_n (\Delta \lambda)_n \langle \lambda_n |\psi\rangle |\lambda_n\rangle##

The kets ##|\lambda_n\rangle## have a different normalization:

  • ##\langle \lambda_n | \lambda_m \rangle = 0## (if ##m \neq n##)
  • ##\langle \lambda_n | \lambda_n \rangle = \frac{1}{(\Delta \lambda)_n}##
If the states ##|\lambda_n\rangle## change smoothly with ##n##, then this can be approximated by an integral:

##|\psi\rangle = \int d\lambda \langle \lambda |\psi\rangle |\lambda\rangle##
 
Last edited:
So dλ is introduced to make the product between each eigenket and dλ finite, since the eigenkets will be of "infinite length" in the sense of lim.Δλ→0[1/Δλ]. That makes sense. In that case, will the coefficients <λIΨ> be infinitesimal? Otherwise the integral would diverge, even over a finite range.
 
Spin One said:
So dλ is introduced to make the product between each eigenket and dλ finite, since the eigenkets will be of "infinite length" in the sense of lim.Δλ→0[1/Δλ]. That makes sense. In that case, will the coefficients <λIΨ> be infinitesimal? Otherwise the integral would diverge, even over a finite range.

Yes - but unless you want to get into non-standard analysis infinitesimals are a load of the proverbial, although used every now and then when speaking informally. I do it but shouldn't really.

There is no way to understand it properly unless you study the references in my link.

Start with Distribution Theory.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 176 ·
6
Replies
176
Views
14K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K