How Does an Extra Factor of i Affect Quantum Probability Calculations?

In summary: E1) and the column vector that represents |2> would be (0 1)T.del(E2). However, |1> and |2> are not in the same basis, so |1> and |2> are not equal.
  • #1
davon806
148
1

Homework Statement


b.jpg

I am not sure about (c) and (d). Firstly, I calculated the eigenvector of A :
|v_1> = ( |2 > - |1> )/ √(2) ,eigenvalue -2
|v_2> = ( |2> + |1>) / √(2) , eigenvalue 2

For (c), basically it follows from part (b) where the probability of a_1 is given by the formula | <v_1 | ψ > |^2 , and similarly for a_2 ( using v_2)

However, I don't see any reason that an extra factor of i will change the value of those probabilities ? ( I've calculated a_1 and a_2 which are both 1/2, in (b) )

For(d), I would like to use the formula ψ(t) = e^(-iEt/h) ψ(0). However, the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian was not provided. Given the fact that we only have |1> , |2> , |v_1> and |v_2> : How can I use this formula?

Homework Equations


In the general case, the Hamiltonian of the system can be written as a 2 × 2 matrix, where the elements of the matrix are given by: H_ij = < i | H | j > . So for example, <2 | A | 1 > = A_21 = 2. Actually A is not the Hamiltonian so I am not even sure whether it is applicable to part (a). Nevertheless I use this in (a). If I was wrong please correct me !

The Attempt at a Solution


Incorporated in question
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
davon806 said:

Homework Statement


Firstly, I calculated the eigenvector of A :
|v_1> = ( |2 > - |1> )/ √(2) ,eigenvalue -2
|v_2> = ( |2> + |1>) / √(2) , eigenvalue 2
OK

For (c), basically it follows from part (b) where the probability of a_1 is given by the formula | <v_1 | ψ > |^2 , and similarly for a_2 ( using v_2) However, I don't see any reason that an extra factor of i will change the value of those probabilities ? ( I've calculated a_1 and a_2 which are both 1/2, in (b) )
The factor of ##i## does make a difference. Did you try calculating the probabilities for this case?

For(d), I would like to use the formula ψ(t) = e^(-iEt/h) ψ(0). However, the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian was not provided.
Actually, the eigenstates of H are essentially given. Note that the form of the matrix given for H is for the original basis {|1>, |2>}. What do you get for H|1>?
Actually A is not the Hamiltonian so I am not even sure whether it is applicable to part (a). Nevertheless I use this in (a). If I was wrong please correct me !
You are OK here.
 
  • Like
Likes davon806
  • #3
TSny said:
OK

The factor of ##i## does make a difference. Did you try calculating the probabilities for this case?

Actually, the eigenstates of H are essentially given. Note that the form of the matrix given for H is for the original basis {|1>, |2>}. What do you get for H|1>?
You are OK here.

Hi TSny ,

For (b), firstly I rewrite | ψ > = (1/2√2) ( |v_2> - |v_1> + i√3 |v_1> + i√3 |v_2>)
then I calculated P_a1 = | < v_1 | Ψ > | ^2 = (1/8) | -1 + √3 i |^2 = (1/8) *4 = 1/2 .

Hence we can calculate Φ in a similar way : | Φ > = (1/2√2) ( |v_2> - |v_1> + √3 |v_1> + √3 |v_2>) , so
new P_a1 = | < v_1 | Φ > | ^2 = (1/8) (-1 + √3 )^2 = (1/8) *(2+2√3 ) = (1+√3 )/ 4 > old P_a1?

What is the physical reason behind this? (As asked in (c))

For(d), write |1> = (x y) . H |1> = (E1 0 E2 0) ( x y) = (E1x E2y) ≠ λ|1> ?
 
  • #4
davon806 said:
For (b), firstly I rewrite | ψ > = (1/2√2) ( |v_2> - |v_1> + i√3 |v_1> + i√3 |v_2>)
then I calculated P_a1 = | < v_1 | Ψ > | ^2 = (1/8) | -1 + √3 i |^2 = (1/8) *4 = 1/2 .
OK

Hence we can calculate Φ in a similar way : | Φ > = (1/2√2) ( |v_2> - |v_1> + √3 |v_1> + √3 |v_2>) , so
new P_a1 = | < v_1 | Φ > | ^2 = (1/8) (-1 + √3 )^2 = (1/8) *(2+2√3 ) = (1+√3 )/ 4 > old P_a1?
OK, except you didn't quite calculate (-1 + √3 )^2 correctly.

What is the physical reason behind this? (As asked in (c))
I don't think I can give you a decent physical reason. But it's important to understand that when you expand a state in terms of basis vectors, the relative phases of the coefficients of the expansion are very important. Changing the relative phase changes the state. So, the state (1/√2)( |1> + |2> ) is a different state than (1/√2)( |1> + i |2> ), even though the magnitudes of the coefficients are the same in each state.

For example, if |1> represents the spin state of a spin 1/2 particle where the spin is definitely "up along the z-direction" and if |2> represents the state of the particle where the spin is definitely "down along the z-direction", then (1/√2)( |1> + |2> ) is the state where the spin is definitely along the +x direction while (1/√2)( |1> + i |2> ) is the state where the spin is definitely along the +y direction. So, the presence of the i makes a big difference.

For(d),
write |1> = (x y) . H |1> = (E1 0 E2 0) ( x y) = (E1x E2y) ≠ λ|1> ?
You are working with matrices that are written with respect to the basis vectors |1> and |2>. So, the column vector that represents |1> would be (1 0)T.
 
  • Like
Likes davon806
  • #5
del
 
Last edited:

1. What is the QM time evolution problem?

The QM time evolution problem is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that deals with how a quantum system changes over time. It involves calculating the state of a quantum system at a future time based on its current state and the governing equations of quantum mechanics.

2. How is the QM time evolution problem solved?

The QM time evolution problem is solved using the Schrödinger equation, which is a differential equation that describes the time evolution of a quantum system. It involves using mathematical operators, such as the Hamiltonian, to determine the future state of the system.

3. What is the role of observables in the QM time evolution problem?

Observables are physical quantities that can be measured in a quantum system, such as position or momentum. In the QM time evolution problem, observables play a crucial role in determining the probabilities of different outcomes for a measurement and how they change over time.

4. How does the QM time evolution problem relate to the uncertainty principle?

The uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know the exact values of certain pairs of observables, such as position and momentum, simultaneously. In the QM time evolution problem, this uncertainty is reflected in the probabilistic nature of the system's state and how it evolves over time.

5. Can the QM time evolution problem be applied to macroscopic systems?

While quantum mechanics is typically associated with microscopic systems, the QM time evolution problem can also be applied to macroscopic systems. However, the effects of quantum mechanics are not usually noticeable at this scale and can be described by classical mechanics instead.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
227
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
7
Views
580
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top