What is the meaning of a ket in quantum mechanics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kweierstrass
  • Start date Start date
kweierstrass
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
What is meant when writing a "one-ket" like this |1> ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That usually means the principle quantum number is 1.
 
It depends on the system; for the one-dim. harmonic oscillator it means the first excited state |1> above the ground state |0>.
 
Maybe I should have meantioned the whole context, I now realize that it means the eigenket coresponding to the eigenvalue 1 in my specific problem. Thanks anyway
 
My understanding is that it is often an abstract way of referring to the n=1 basis vector. This is similar to what someone wrote above.

The basis vectors must be implicitly defined, and then |n> refers to the nth basis vector. Unfortunately I am not clear on exactly where and how the |n> basis vectors are typically defined. I often see the notation |1> without it being clear what the ACTUAL eigenfunctions being referred to are. In that type of situation, I guess it is simply an abstraction; and index referring to a real function.
 
I think this explains it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra-ket_notation#Most_common_use:_Quantum_mechanics"

In quantum mechanics, the state of a physical system is identified with a ray in a complex separable Hilbert space, \mathcal{H}, or, equivalently, by a point in the projective Hilbert space of the system. Each vector in the ray is called a "ket" and written as |\psi\rangle, which would be read as "ket psi". (The \psi\! can be replaced by any symbols, letters, numbers, or even words—whatever serves as a convenient label for the ket.) The ket can be viewed as a column vector and (given a basis for the Hilbert space) written out in components,

|\psi\rangle = [ c_0 \; c_1 \; c_2 \; \dots ] ^T,

when the considered Hilbert space is finite-dimensional. In infinite-dimensional spaces there are infinitely many components and the ket may be written in complex function notation, by prepending it with a bra (see below). For example,

\langle x|\psi\rangle = \psi(x)\ = c e^{- ikx}.



(:rolleyes: ... is it because English is not my native language ... but "infinite-dimensional spaces" and "prepending bra" makes me think of something "completely different" ... :smile:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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