State vectors and Eigenvalues?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of state vectors, eigenvalues, and the implications of the time-independent Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the nature of state kets, superpositions, and the conditions under which certain operators yield eigenvalues.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how a state ket $$|\Psi \rangle$$ can satisfy the equation $$\hat {H} |\Psi \rangle = E|\Psi \rangle$$ if it represents a superposition of states with different energy levels, suggesting a misunderstanding of the nature of energy eigenstates.
  • Another participant clarifies that $$|\Psi \rangle$$ cannot represent a state with more than one energy, emphasizing that solutions to the equation correspond to energy eigenstates with definite energies.
  • A later reply states that the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is not an eigenvalue problem, indicating that actual wave functions do not need to be eigenvectors of any operator.
  • One participant asserts that the states $$|\varphi_i\rangle$$ are the ones that have different energy levels, not $$|\Psi \rangle$$ itself.
  • Another participant discusses a generalized statement involving operators A and B, suggesting that if $$|\Psi \rangle$$ is an eigenstate of both, it is also an eigenstate of their product, while also noting that it can still be a superposition of eigenstates of other operators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of superpositions and eigenstates, with some asserting that $$|\Psi \rangle$$ cannot be a superposition while others argue that it can still represent a superposition of eigenstates of different operators. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the nature of state kets and eigenstates, particularly regarding the definitions of superposition and the conditions under which operators yield eigenvalues. The discussion does not resolve these complexities.

kq6up
Messages
366
Reaction score
13
If I define a state ket in the traditional way, Say:

$$|\Psi \rangle =\sum _{ i }^{ }{ a_{ i }|\varphi _{ i }\rangle \quad } $$

Where $$a_i$$ is the probability amplitude.

How does:

$$\hat {H } |\Psi \rangle =E|\Psi \rangle $$ if the states of $$\Psi$$ could possibly represent states that have different energy levels, and one would not be able to factor the energy eigenvalue out of the summation. I know I am missing something big here. Could someone point it out?

Edit: Does $$ \hat {H} $$ collapse psi to one state phi, and so render only energy eigenvalue of the one phi that remains?

Thanks,
Chris Maness
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
kq6up said:
If I define a state ket in the traditional way, Say:

$$|\Psi \rangle =\sum _{ i }^{ }{ a_{ i }|\varphi _{ i }\rangle \quad } $$

Where $$a_i$$ is the probability amplitude.

How does:

$$\hat {H } |\Psi \rangle =E|\Psi \rangle $$ if the states of $$|\Psi \rangle$$ could possibly represent states that have different energy levels, and one would not be able to factor the energy eigenvalue out of the summation. I know I am missing something big here. Could someone point it out?

Thanks,
Chris Maness

When you write ##\hat {H } |\Psi \rangle =E|\Psi \rangle ##, ##|\Psi \rangle## cannot represent a state with more than one energy. Each possible ##|\Psi \rangle## that is a solution to that equation is an energy eigenstate with a definite energy.

That equation has many solutions, each corresponding to a different energy. An arbitrary state will be a superposition of energy eigenstates with different energies.

The equation ##\hat {H } |\Psi \rangle =E|\Psi \rangle ## is the time-independent Schroedinger equation or the the energy eigenstate equation. It is only an intermediate step in the solution of the full time-dependent Schroedinger equation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Ok, so $$ \Psi $$ can't be a superposition anymore.

Does this work for a generalized statement?

$$ \hat { B } \hat { A } |\Psi \rangle =ab|\Psi \rangle $$ Where if, psi is not collapsed, it is at least degenerate, and where A & B commute.

Thanks,
Chris Maness
 
kq6up said:
Ok, so $$ \Psi $$ can't be a superposition anymore.

Does this work for a generalized statement?

$$ \hat { B } \hat { A } |\Psi \rangle =ab|\Psi \rangle $$ Where if, psi is not collapsed, it is at least degenerate, and where A & B commute.

Thanks,
Chris Maness

Statements such as these are eigenvalue problems. In these cases, by definition, ##\Psi## must be an eigenvector of the operator.

The time-dependent Schroedinger equation is NOT an eigenvalue problem:

$$H\left|\Psi\right>=i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left|\Psi\right>$$

And so ACTUAL wave functions do NOT have to be eigen-vectors of any operator. We just use the eigenvalue problems to help us solve the full problem.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
It's the phis that have the different energy levels!
 
kq6up said:
Ok, so $$ \Psi $$ can't be a superposition anymore.

Does this work for a generalized statement?

$$ \hat { B } \hat { A } |\Psi \rangle =ab|\Psi \rangle $$ Where if, psi is not collapsed, it is at least degenerate, and where A & B commute.

Thanks,
Chris Maness

Yes, in the example you give, if ##|\Psi \rangle## is an eigenstate of A and an eigenstate of B, then it is an eigenstate of AB or BA. This does not mean that ##|\Psi \rangle## is not a superposition. It is a superposition of eigenstates of other operators that do not commute with A or B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_set_of_commuting_observables
http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~ldeldebb/docs/QM/lect2.pdf (Section 2.7)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K