Rough Description of State Space

chessforce
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I have done only a small bit of reading/studying of quantum mechanics. So, from what I have gathered thus far, I have the following rough semi-graphical description of state space:

Imagine a space in which you have a lot, but a definite number of discrete points. Each of those points (state vectors) can be described using a combination of base states with appropriate coefficients, provided that the dot/inner product between any two base states (base vectors) i, j is orthogonal (i.e. defined by the Kronecker delta function).

So, what I am wondering is if this is correct by any means. As aforementioned, my exposure to QM is minimal and therefore I may have this completely wrong. Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You're not that far off. The state space is just an ordinary (complex) vector space. It has an infinite number (in fact, a continuum) of points, just like an ordinary vector space, and often has in fact an infinite number of dimensions.

Like any vector space, it has many bases, not all of which are orthonormal, and while its not necessary to take an orthonormal basis, this is almost always done in practice because we usually take as a basis the eigenstates of some collection of observables, and such states are always orthogonal. Of course, since this space doesn't have an obvious geometric interpretation, you should be wondering where the inner product comes from, and a rough answer is that its define so that the last sentence I said is true.
 
Thank you for the clarification.
 
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