Two-Level Quantum System, Need help Finding State at time t

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
7 replies · 2K views
B3NR4Y
Gold Member
Messages
170
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


[itex]|1>[/itex] and [itex]|2>[/itex] form an orthonormal basis for a two-level system. The Hamiltonian of this system is given by:
[tex] \hat{H} = \epsilon<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 1 & i \\<br /> -i & 1<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

a.) Is this Hamiltonian hermitian? What is the significance of a hermitian operator?
b.) Find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of this hamiltonian.
c.) Suppose a particle is in the state [itex]|1>[/itex]. An energy measurement is performed on the particle. What are the possible outcomes of such a measurement, and what are the probabilities?

Homework Equations


All that should be necessary is the Schrödinger equation.
[tex]\hat{H} |\psi> = E|\psi>[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


For part a I checked that the eigenvalues of the hamiltonian are real. This kills two birds with one stone because part b asks for the eigenvectors. They were real, and given by 2ε and 0. The significance of an operator being hermitian is that hermitian operators correspond to observables.

For part b I just went through the rigor of finding the eigenvectors.
They were
[itex]|1> = <br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> i \\<br /> 1 <br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex] and
[itex] |2> =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> -i \\<br /> 1 <br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex] The first corresponds to the eigenvalue 2ε and the second corresponds to the eigenvalue 0.

For part C I used Schrödinger's equation and said that since |1> is an eigenvector of the hamiltonian it has a constant definite energy given by 2ε with 100% probability. This is where I feel like I am wrong, because I think this violates an uncertainty principle.

For part D I am not sure what to do. I know I should multiple by some exponent with time, but I'm not sure how to find this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
B3NR4Y said:
For part b I just went through the rigor of finding the eigenvectors.
They were
|1>=(i1)|1>=(i1) |1> = \begin{pmatrix} i \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} and
|2>=(−i1)|2>=(−i1) |2> = \begin{pmatrix} -i \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} The first corresponds to the eigenvalue 2ε and the second corresponds to the eigenvalue 0.
The problem doesn't say that ##|1\rangle## and ##|2\rangle## are energy eigenvectors and you shouldn't assume this way.
B3NR4Y said:
For part C I used Schrödinger's equation and said that since |1> is an eigenvector of the hamiltonian it has a constant definite energy given by 2ε with 100% probability. This is where I feel like I am wrong, because I think this violates an uncertainty principle.
If in part b) you don't assume that ##|1\rangle## and ##|2\rangle## are energy eigenvectors, these vectors will be some superposition states of the energy eigenvectors and thus the energy measurement will yield a multiple possibilities.
 
Yeah my assumption about the basis was stupid. I did some extra reading to refresh my memory from my first quantum course and realized that.

Since |1> and |2> are any two linearly independent vectors, then an arbitrary state |ψ> can be written c1 |1> + c2 |2>. In the case that part c says, c2 = 0 and c1=1. However I am not sure how to write the |1> state in terms of the eigenvectors which I think is necessary. I was thinking that if the basis vectors are given by
[itex]|1> =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 1 \\<br /> 0<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex] and
[itex] |2> =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 0 \\<br /> 1<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex]

Writing |1> in terms of the eigenvectors is difficult to me.
 
B3NR4Y said:
Since |1> and |2> are any two linearly independent vectors, then an arbitrary state |ψ> can be written c1 |1> + c2 |2>.
Yes that's right.
B3NR4Y said:
In the case that part c says, c2 = 0 and c1=1. However I am not sure how to write the |1> state in terms of the eigenvectors which I think is necessary.
You actually have a good start already since you have calculated the eigenvectors of ##H## in the basis ##\{| i \rangle\}## with ##i = 1,2##. However, let's rename the two eigenvectors using different notation, let's say ##|a\rangle## and ##|b\rangle##. Written in vector notation, these eigenvectors of ##H## will become
$$
|a\rangle =
\begin{pmatrix}
i \\ 1
\end{pmatrix} = i
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\ 0
\end{pmatrix}+
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\ 1
\end{pmatrix} = i|1\rangle + |2\rangle
$$
and
$$
|b\rangle =
\begin{pmatrix}
-i \\ 1
\end{pmatrix} = -i
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\ 0
\end{pmatrix}+
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\ 1
\end{pmatrix} = -i|1\rangle + |2\rangle
$$
Your task is to invert these two equations such that ##|1\rangle## and ##|2\rangle## are explicitly written in terms of ##|a\rangle## and ##|b\rangle##. After that, you should normalize them.
 
I see, that is shockingly easy.

So once I have that I should compute [itex]<1|\hat{H}|1>[/itex] and the coefficient of each term is the probability of that energy?
 
B3NR4Y said:
So once I have that I should compute <1|^H|1>
You are not required to calculate the average of the measurement results, only the possible outcomes and the corresponding probability are asked.
 
Okay I have that |1> can be written:
[tex]|1\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}i} \left(|a\rangle-|b\rangle\right)[/tex]
With this I apply H, which I can use the Schrödinger equation to find. The only thing I am uneasy on now is that I think the coefficients will be imaginary, and I am not sure how to reconcile that. I remember in the past we had problems with clebsch-gordan tables and if the coefficients were imaginary we just took the length of that vector (i.e. -i/2 would just be given 1/2).

Sorry if all of these are stupid questions, I haven't done any of this all summer and am trying to get back in the swing of it.
 
Last edited:
B3NR4Y said:
Okay I have that |1> can be written:
|1⟩=1√2i(|a⟩−|b⟩)|1⟩=12i(|a⟩−|b⟩)​
Yes that's right.
B3NR4Y said:
The only thing I am uneasy on now is that I think the coefficients will be imaginary, and I am not sure how to reconcile that.
The coefficients are generally complex numbers, it's the probabilities which equal the modulus square of those coefficients that are real.
B3NR4Y said:
I remember in the past we had problems with clebsch-gordan tables and if the coefficients were imaginary we just took the length of that vector (i.e. -i/2 would just be given 1/2).
I don't remember one has to deal with imaginary coefficients in calculating CG coefficients. The proportionality constant between the states ##|s_1s_2;SS\rangle## and ## |s_1s_2;s_1s_2\rangle## is agreed to be 1 and also the action of the lowering and raising operators gives only real coefficient, so the CG coefficients must be real.