How Does Feynman Normalize CII in the Ammonia Molecule States?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the normalization of the coefficient CII in the context of quantum mechanics, specifically referencing Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Volume 3. The equation < II | II > = < II | 1 >< 1 | II > + < II | 2 >< 2 | II > = 1 is central to the normalization process. The participant struggles with the transition from the initial equation to the conclusion that CII = 1/√2 (C1 + C2), highlighting confusion over matrix elements and state transitions. Clarifications provided by other users emphasize the importance of correctly identifying matrix elements and understanding the relationships between coefficients C1, C2, and CII.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, specifically state normalization.
  • Familiarity with Feynman's Lectures on Physics, particularly Volume 3.
  • Knowledge of matrix elements in quantum mechanics.
  • Basic grasp of complex coefficients and their role in wave function representation.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the normalization of wave functions in quantum mechanics.
  • Learn about matrix elements and their significance in quantum state transitions.
  • Explore the implications of complex coefficients in quantum mechanics.
  • Review Feynman's Lectures on Physics, focusing on the sections related to state normalization and wave functions.
USEFUL FOR

Students and enthusiasts of quantum mechanics, physicists seeking clarification on normalization techniques, and anyone studying Feynman's approach to wave functions and state transitions.

harpf
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to follow Feynman's explanation on page 9-3 of Volume 3 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. I've attached a copy of the section in question.

To normalize CII he notes that
< II | II > = < II | 1 >< 1 | II > + < II | 2 >< 2 | II > = 1
I am not clear how he derives the conclusion
CII = 1/√2 (C1 + C2)

I tried to solve the first equation unsuccessfully like this-
< II | 1 >< 1 | II > + < II | 2 >< 2 | II > = 1
CII C1 + CII C2 = 1
[1/√2 (C1 + C2)] C1 + {1/√2 (C1 + C2)} C2 = 1
[1/√2 (C1 + C2)] (C1 + C2) = 1
1/√2 (C1 + C2) (C1 + C2) = 1
which isn’t working for me.

Thank you for clarifying.
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
The step from the first to the second line of your attempt is wrong. You've lost half of the matrix elements.
 
Thank you for your response, M Quack, which is clear and helpful.

If CII = < II | Φ >, I’m assuming I can substitute it for both < II | 1 > and < II | 2 >. You can see I’ve taken the same approach with C1 and C2. I suspect to go further I may have to use C1 = C2 and possibly C1*, which I am frankly weak on, and < 2 | 1 > = < 1 | 2 > = 1 / 2.

The source of my confusion may be a basic misunderstanding of state transitions and the meaning of the coefficients, C1, C2, and CII. I am really struggling to move forward. Thank you.
 
<ii | 1> <1 | ii> = (cii^* c1) (c1^* cii)

= (1/√2 (c1+c2)^* c1) (c1^* 1/√2 (c1+c2)[/color]
= 1/2 (c1^* c1 + c2^*c1) (c1^*c1+c1^*c2)
= 1/2 (1 + 0) (1 + 0)

Do you see what I mean when I say you dropped half the matrix elements?

(Please don't ask me why preview insists on making everything lowercase)
 
That’s really helpful. The fog begins to lift. Thanks again.

I now realize the difference between < II | Φ >, which is CII, and < II | 1 >, which is the product of | 1 > and < II |.
Also, < II | = | II >* = CII*.

No, I can’t say I see what you mean about the matrix elements (although implying I was able to identify half of them seems generous).
 
<II|i> is nothing else than a matrix element between the old and new wave functions. Maybe that is speaking a bit loosely as usually a matrix element is <x|M|x> where |x> is the wave function or state, and M some operator or matrix, depending on the notation.
 
I appreciate your help.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K