Normalizing Data: Unknown Values

  • Thread starter Thread starter g.lemaitre
  • Start date Start date
g.lemaitre
Messages
267
Reaction score
2
Screenshot2012-08-15at102228PM.png


I don't see how they know this is properly normalized. None of the values are specified, not psi, a sub i, E sub i, a sub k, or p sub i.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They're not saying that this equation follows from anything that has been given so far. They're introducing a label, "properly normalized", which can be applied to a state if and only if the condition in 1.31 is true.

Equation 1.29 tells you that any quantum state can be thought of as a weighted combination of energy states, whose weights are given by a_i. What they're saying is that if someone hands you some arbitrary state, you can find those values by using 1.30. If the values that you find happen to satisfy 1.31, then you can call the state a normalized state. If not, then you can't call it that. In the case of a non-normalized state, you can make it normalized by dividing every a_i by the total magnitude, which is what they're doing in 1.32. You can check to confirm that doing this will ensure that \langle \psi | \psi \rangle = 1.
 
thanks for clearing that up for me
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top