How to Represent Eigenvectors in Column Matrix Form Using Bra-Ket Notation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of eigenvectors in column matrix form using bra-ket notation within the context of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the infinite square well and the implications of different dimensionalities of Hilbert spaces. Participants explore the relationship between abstract quantum states and their representations in finite and infinite dimensions.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about representing eigenvectors in column matrix form and how to operate with an operator on a ket.
  • Another participant clarifies that states are not inherently column matrices and that operators are not strictly matrices, emphasizing the dependence on the chosen basis.
  • Several participants reference Leonard Susskind's approach, which uses column vectors for kets and row vectors for bras, noting that this representation is basis-dependent.
  • One participant elaborates on the abstract nature of vectors in quantum mechanics, discussing the importance of bases determined by eigenstates and the completeness of these bases in Hilbert space.
  • Another participant explains the mapping from abstract Hilbert space vectors to specific realizations in terms of sequences, detailing how operators can be represented as matrices in this context.
  • There is a discussion about the pedagogical approach of simplifying concepts for beginners, with one participant appreciating Susskind's method for its relatability to familiar mathematical formulations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of confusion and differing interpretations regarding the representation of quantum states and operators. While some agree on the basis-dependence of these representations, others highlight the complexities introduced in infinite-dimensional spaces. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the topic.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on limitations related to the dimensionality of Hilbert spaces, the abstract nature of quantum states, and the specific choices of basis that affect the representation of states and operators.

iAlexN
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I'm new to bra-ket notation and am slightly confused; given an infinite square well with eigenvectors:

\phi = \sqrt{2/a}\sin( (n\pi x)/a)

And we assume the form: H |φ> = E_n |φ>

How would you then represent φ in terms of a column matrix, because that what I thought |φ> represents. Given some operator H (matrix) how would I operate with that matrix on |φ>?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
States are not column matrices and operators are not matrices. For separable spaces, it is possible to represent the state with a (generally infinite) column vector and the operators with a (generally infinite) matrix. What they will look like depends on the basis you use.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and bhobba
Well, I guess I'm confused, too. I have a book by Leonard Susskind on non-relativistic QM, and he explicitly represents kets with column vectors, bras with row vectors, and linear operators with matrices. He does make it clear they are dependent on a particular choice of basis.
 
sandy stone said:
Well, I guess I'm confused, too. I have a book by Leonard Susskind on non-relativistic QM, and he explicitly represents kets with column vectors, bras with row vectors, and linear operators with matrices. He does make it clear they are dependent on a particular choice of basis.
And this is actually a good approach to learning QM. In full QM the bras, kets, and operators are mathematical objects which are more general than that, but basically they still have the same operational properties as vectors and matrices.
 
sandy stone said:
Well, I guess I'm confused, too. I have a book by Leonard Susskind on non-relativistic QM, and he explicitly represents kets with column vectors, bras with row vectors, and linear operators with matrices. He does make it clear they are dependent on a particular choice of basis.
In no way does this contradict what I said. Matrices and row vectors are perfectly fine ways of representing linear operators and kets in finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. The problem comes when you try to do this in infinite dimensional ones (where you would get infinite matrices and vectors) or, even worse, non-separable ones.
 
OK, I understand now. Thanks.
 
sandy stone said:
Well, I guess I'm confused, too. I have a book by Leonard Susskind on non-relativistic QM, and he explicitly represents kets with column vectors, bras with row vectors, and linear operators with matrices. He does make it clear they are dependent on a particular choice of basis.
This is another sin in physics didactics! A vector is an abstract object, and it is represented as columns or rows of number only when referring to a basis and writing the linear decomposition of a vector in terms of this basis, putting the corresponding components of the vector in these handy schemes to perform calculations in terms of matrix-vector products.

In quantum theory you have abstract Hilbert-space vectors, written in the bra-ket notation as ##|\psi \rangle##. Then you have bases, which are usually determined as eigenbases of self-adjoint operators on Hilbert space that represent observables. Let's take the quantum theory of a single particle, moving in only one spatial dimension as an example. For its Hilbert space you can take the energy eigenstates of an harmonic oscillator as the basis. This is very convenient, because it's a discrete basis, and all basis vectors are true normalizable Hilbert-space vector. They are called ##|n \rangle##, where ##n \in \mathbb{N}_0=\{0,1,2,\ldots \}##. The energy eigenvalues of the harmonic oscillator in the usual convention are ##E_n=\hbar \omega (n+1/2)##.

What's more important in our context is the fact that these vectors ##|n \rangle## are a complete orthonormal set in the Hilbert space of our particles, i.e., you can decompose each vector in terms of a linear combination of these vectors:
$$|\psi \rangle =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} |n \rangle \langle n|\psi \rangle=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \psi_n |n \rangle.$$
One can show that for any two vectors ##|\psi \rangle## and ##|\phi \rangle##
$$\langle \phi|\psi \rangle=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \phi_n^* \psi.$$
So you have mapping from the abstract Hilbert space to one specific realization, namely the Hilbert space of square summable sequences,
$$|\psi \rangle \mapsto (\psi_n).$$
The mapping is one-to-one, i.e., for any given sequence you can define also the vector according to it, using the above introduced basis.

Now, in analogy, to finite-dimensional unitary vector spaces, you can write the vector components as columns with the ##\psi_n## as entries and the co-vectors (represented by the bras in the Dirac notation) as rows,
$$\langle \phi | \mapsto (\phi_0^*,\phi_1^*,\ldots)$$
to have the usual matrix-vector notation.

You can also represent the operators for observables within this formalism. You just need completeness relations:
$$\hat{O}=\sum_{n_1,n_2=0}^{\infty} |n_1 \rangle \langle n_1|\hat{O}|n_2 \rangle \langle n_2| = \sum_{n_1,n_2=0}^{\infty} |n_1 \rangle \langle n_2 O_{n_1n_2}.$$
Then you have for any vector ##|\psi \rangle##
$$\hat{O} |\psi \rangle =\sum_{n_1,n_2=0}^{\infty} |n_1 \rangle O_{n_1 n_2} \langle n_2|\psi \rangle=\sum_{n_1,n_2=0}^{\infty} |n_1 \rangle O_{n_1n_2} \psi_{n_2},$$
i.e., the operation of ##\hat{O}## on ##|\psi \rangle## is maped to the usual matrix-vector product
$$(\hat{O} \psi)_{n_1}=\sum_{n_2=0}^{\infty} O_{n_1 n_2} \psi_{n_2}.$$
So you can write the operators as matrices with infinitely many rows and columns to be "applied" to the column-vector representation in terms of the vector components.

This specific formalism is also known as "Heisenberg's matrix mechanics".

In the same way you come to "Schrödinger's wave mechanics" by not using a discrete basis but a generalized basis of continuous eigenvalues, e.g., using the generalized position eigenstates.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: GammaRay
Thanks. I think Susskind was trying to keep it simple for us beginners by concentrating on cases with a finite number of dimensions in Hilbert space - in this case, spin. Again, he made it clear that he was working with a specific choice of basis. Speaking as a beginner, it's nice to start off with something more or less concrete, and relatable to familiar math formulations, before moving on to more abstract ideas. For instance, I personally find this treatment of the Dirac equation to be easier to follow than many, perhaps only because the notation is a little easier for me: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath654/kmath654.htm
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: GammaRay and dlgoff

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K