How to interpret wave function as a matrix

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the interpretation of wave functions as matrices within the context of quantum mechanics, particularly relating to the Schrödinger equation and Dirac's matrix mechanics. Participants explore the dimensionality of these matrices and their application in various theoretical frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the wave function can be represented as a matrix, specifically an infinite-dimensional column matrix, expressed as a sum over basis vectors.
  • Others question how an infinite-dimensional wave function can be reconciled with the finite-dimensional operators, such as the 4x4 matrix in the Dirac equation.
  • A participant suggests that while one could theoretically write a wave function in terms of a matrix, the interpretation of the Dirac field as a wave function is considered obsolete, as it is now treated as an operator in quantum field theory.
  • There is acknowledgment of the complexity involved in relating infinite-dimensional spaces to finite-dimensional operators, with some proposing specific formulations involving sums over basis vectors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of infinite-dimensional wave functions to finite-dimensional operators, particularly in the context of the Dirac equation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation and utility of these mathematical representations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of wave functions and operators, as well as the unresolved nature of how infinite-dimensional representations can be effectively applied in finite-dimensional contexts.

Black Integra
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
As we all know, we can write Schrödinger equation in Linear algebraic form.
Also, Dirac had introduced his matrix mechanics.
And we can write any linear operator as matrix.
and so on...

How can we write wave function as matrix?
What is the dimension of this matrix?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Black Integra said:
As we all know, we can write Schrödinger equation in Linear algebraic form.
Also, Dirac had introduced his matrix mechanics.
And we can write any linear operator as matrix.
and so on...

How can we write wave function as matrix?
What is the dimension of this matrix?
[itex]\infty\times 1[/itex]. You can write [itex]\psi=\sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k e_k[/itex], where the [itex]e_k[/itex] are basis vectors. The "matrix" of components of [itex]\psi[/itex] relative to the ordered basis [itex]\langle e_i\rangle_{k=1}^\infty[/itex] is [tex]\begin{pmatrix}a_1\\ a_2\\ \vdots\end{pmatrix}[/tex]
 
Thank you for your reply.
but if the dimension is inf how can I apply this to, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation" , where the dimension of its operator is 4x4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Black Integra said:
Thank you for your reply.
but if the dimension is inf how can I apply this to, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation" , where the dimension of its operator is 4x4.
You wouldn't. If you're talking about a theory in which a solution to the classical Dirac equation is considered an ([itex]\mathbb R^4[/itex]-valued) wavefunction, then you could write [tex]\psi=\sum_{\mu=0}^3\sum_{k=1}^\infty a^\mu_k e_\mu u_k[/tex] where the [itex]e_\mu[/itex] are the standard basis vectors for the space of 4×1 matrices, and the [itex]u_k[/itex] are members of an orthonormal basis for the space of square-integrable functions. I suppose you could arrange the [itex]a^\mu_k[/itex] into another infinite column matrix if you want to, but I think that would be a rather pointless thing to do.

Anyway, the theory that interprets a classical Dirac field as a wavefunction is obsolete. The Dirac equation is still used in quantum field theory, but now the Dirac field (the solution to the equation) isn't a wavefunction. It's an operator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, that's very interesting.
Thanks for those information!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K