Fourier transform as (continuous) change of basis

TrickyDicky
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
28
Trying not to get too confused with this but I'm not clear about switching from coordinate representation to momentum representation and back by changing basis thru the Fourier transform.
My concern is: why do we need to change basis? One would naively think that being in a Hilbert space where global sets of basis are available one shouldn't be required to change basis when performing a linear transformation.

I guess this is related to the noncommuting of x and p (HUP), and the Hilbert infinite -dimensional space topological structure but how exactly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not completely sure if i understand the question correctly.

One likes to change the basis from the position to the momentum basis, because the momentum basis is an eigen-basis ie the plane waves are eigenstates of propagation and it is thus easy to calculate their time-evolution.

So we change basis, propagate, and change back.

Edit: In the general case you do not have to change the basis in order to apply any operator, provided you know what the operator looks like in the basis you start with.
 
Last edited:
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top