Is the distintion between vector and rays relevant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carllacan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rays Vector
Click For Summary
The distinction between vectors and rays in quantum mechanics is significant, particularly in the context of the Wigner-Weyl formulation, which relies on this differentiation for its foundational principles. While quantum states are often treated as vectors, the representation as rays is crucial for understanding global phase as a gauge operation. The Born rule must be adapted based on whether states are considered as unit vectors or rays, as most formulations assume unit vectors. Additionally, density matrix formalism provides a framework that naturally incorporates the global phase and treats states as positive operators of unit trace. Understanding these distinctions enhances clarity in quantum mechanics and aids in avoiding confusion regarding the nature of quantum states.
carllacan
Messages
272
Reaction score
3
Hi.

Quantum states are usually represented as vectors, and treated as such, even when distinct states should be represented by rays. Is there any case (in physics) when it is important to take into account this distinction?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not that I know of, other than the obvious fact that you have to normalize your probabilities before you can count them as proper probabilities.
 
As Matterwave says, in most treatments there is no difference, because only normalizable states are physical states. However, there is one conceptual point for which rays as states may be better, and that is that multiplication by a global phase is a gauge operation in quantum mechanics. In principle, the states as rays naturally incorporates the global phase as gauge, while it has to be put in "by hand" or inferred from the Born rule if states are considered as unit vectors.

The Born rule has to be adjusted depending on whether rays or unit vectors are considered states. Most statements of the Born rule assume that states are unit vectors.

Another formalism that takes care of the global phase as gauge automatically is density matrix formalism.
 
The truth is states are not elements of a vector space; they are positive operators of unit trace. The Born Rule is given an operator O the expected value is E(O) = Trace (PO). Pure states are states of the form |x><x|. Mixed states are convex sums of pure states. It can be shown that all states are either mixed or pure. Pure states can be mapped to the underlying vector space, but only up to an arbitrary phase factor c because |cx><cx| = |x><x|. But it must always be borne in mind they are not in general elements of that space, they are really operators.

This is the density matrix formalism Atty referred to. Best to view it that way to avoid confusion.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
Your question is relevant

carllacan said:
Hi.

Quantum states are usually represented as vectors, and treated as such, even when distinct states should be represented by rays. Is there any case (in physics) when it is important to take into account this distinction?

Thanks.

The mathematical theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics as a whole (the so-called Wigner-Weyl formulation of quantum mechanics) is built on the distinction between rays and vectors. Without this, there would be nothing in QM, really.

From a statistical standpoint, you treat pure states as rays in the Hilbert space (= points in the projective Hilbert space) and mixed states as density operators. Since mixed states are a generalization of pure states, you can describe pure states as density operators as well. In particular, if a pure state is described as a ray Psi, you can write the density operator for that state as a projector from the Hlbert space onto any (normalized) vector from the ray Psi (such a vector is called state representatives) .
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
777
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
792
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K