Partial vs. Total Time Derivatives of Kets

juan123
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
What is de real difference between parcial and total time derivatives of kets?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The "ket" is something abstract; it lives in a generic rigged Hilbert space. One needs to specify which representation of this abstract RHS is used. This in order to account for the <spatial variables>. Since in ordinary QM time and space are separate variables, one should constantly use partial derivatives, bu not of kets, but of wavefunctions (in case the RHS is made up of function spaces, such as L^2(R, dx).
 
juan123 said:
What is de real difference between parcial and total time derivatives of kets?
The answer is the same as for functions into \mathbb R. None whatsoever.

\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi;t,s\rangle=\frac{d}{d t}|\psi;t,s\rangle=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{|\psi;t+h,s\rangle-|\psi;t,s\rangle}{h}

There is only a small technical difference between the two operators \frac{\partial}{\partial t} and \frac{d}{d t}. The former acts on the function (t,s)\mapsto|\psi;t,s\rangle and the latter on the function t\mapsto|\psi;t,s\rangle.

bigubau said:
The "ket" is something abstract; it lives in a generic rigged Hilbert space.
I wouldn't define kets that way. (This is the way I do it). Rigged Hilbert spaces are used to ensure that every self-adjoint operator has eigenvectors. This is an issue that goes beyond notation.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if this is what you are thinking about, but the following often trips up students.

Let f = f \left( x, y, z, t \right) be a function of position and time, i.e.,

<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> f : \mathbb{R}^4 &amp;\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\\<br /> \left( x,y,z,t\right) &amp;\mapsto f \left( x,y,z,t\right).<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}<br />

Now, suppose that the position is itself a function of time, and use this to define

\tilde{f} \left(t\right) = f \left( x\left(t\right), y\left(t\right), z\left(t\right), t \right).

Then,

\frac{ d \tilde{f}}{dt} = \frac{ \partial f}{\partial x} \frac{dx}{dt} + \frac{ \partial f}{\partial y} \frac{dy}{dt} + \frac{ \partial f}{\partial z} \frac{dz}{dt} + \frac{ \partial f}{\partial t}.

In general,

\frac{ d \tilde{f}}{dt} \ne \frac{ \partial f}{\partial t}.

The function

\tilde{f} : \mathbb{R} &amp;\rightarrow \mathbb{R}

has a different domain than f, and thus is a different function. The two functions are so closely related, however, that the tilde \tilde{} is omitted often (particularly by physicists), resulting in the somewhat nonsensical

\frac{ d f}{dt} \ne \frac{ \partial f}{\partial t}.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top