Help understanding easy state problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter narfarnst
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    State
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the state of polarization represented by specific combinations of basis vectors |t> and |a>. The solutions provided indicate that the angle of polarization can be determined using the arctan function applied to the coefficients of these vectors. The general formula derived is arctan(n/m) for a combination of m|t> + n|a>. The use of bra-ket notation is questioned, with a suggestion that simpler coordinate notation could suffice, yet the advantages of bra-ket notation are acknowledged in more complex scenarios. Overall, the focus is on clarifying the mathematical representation and its implications in polarization states.
narfarnst
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
First off, I don't need a solution, I just need to make sens of the solution I already have.

Homework Statement


What state of polarization do the following represent (Give your answer in terms of an angle relative to the transmission axis).
(a). |t> + |a>
(b) |t> + 2|a>
(c) 2|t>-|a>
-------
My professor has given us the solutions:
(a). arctan(1) = 45 deg.
(b). arctan(2)~65 deg
(c). arctan(-1/2)~27 deg.

From this, I've reverse-engineered that to find the answer in general, for m|t>+n|a> you take arctan(n/m).

But... what the hell does this mean, and how is it derived?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
't' stands for transverse and 'a' for axial and all that means is that they are the basis vectors of the polarisation vector and their coefficients are the components. Similar to (x,y) and the angle between them is arctan (y/x)
 
Thanks.

But why use bra-ket notation? Couldn't you just as easially express them as (a, t). For example, (2, -1) or (1, 1).
 
yes they're equivalent, but the advantages of bra-ket notation are lost in this examble
 
Ahhh, well thanks again.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top