Proof for Problem 1.1.1 of Shankars Prin of QM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mindstein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Qm
Mindstein
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I think I may be over-thinking this as I have had one formal course in QM and an independent study course in QM, but any help is MORE THAN GREATLY APPRECIATED!

Homework Statement



Prove that |-V> = -|V>


Homework Equations



He instructs us to begin with |V> + (-|V>) = 0|V> = |0>


The Attempt at a Solution



Let -|V> = |W>

Then

|V> + |W> = 0|V> = |0>

which implies that

|W> = |-V> ?

I'm really confused.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay, first I think you mean problem 1.1.2, unless you have a different edition.
This is the kind of proof where you have to doubt everything. Act as if you are in a mathematical minefield. Only do the things you can completely justify.

I find myself wanting to say that 1V = V, but that actually isn't an axiom...

Assuming that for the moment,
V + (-1)V = 1V + (-1)V = (1 + -1)V = 0V = 0 (by part 1 of the same problem)
And thus (-1)V is the unique vector -V such that V + -V = 0

Looking up in other books, 1V = V is listed as an eighth axiom for linear spaces. Shankar described it by interpretation in a paragraph, but didn't actually state it overtly as an axiom.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top