Why is psi equal to psi' in vector expressions in QM?

Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
Hi guys

I am reading a book, where they use vector expressions a lot. In it they write

<br /> {\bf{M}} = \sum\limits_{\psi ,\psi &#039;,\sigma ,\sigma &#039;} {\left\langle {\psi &#039;} \right|\left\langle {\sigma &#039;} \right|{\bf{m}}\left| \sigma \right\rangle \left| \psi \right\rangle a_{\psi &#039;,\sigma &#039;}^\dag a{}_{\psi ,\sigma }} <br />

where m={t1, t2, t3} is the vector containing the three Pauli spin matrices t1, t2, t3 and a is the annihilation operator. They say this is equal to

<br /> {\bf{M}} = \frac{\hbar }{2}\sum\limits_{\psi ,\sigma ,\sigma &#039;} {\left\langle {\sigma &#039;} \right|\left( {t_1 ,t_2 ,t_3 } \right)\left| \sigma \right\rangle a_{\psi ,\sigma &#039;}^\dag a{}_{\psi ,\sigma }} <br />

I cannot see why they equal psi = psi', since m is a vector, not a diagonal matrix. What are they doing here?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Without having more details about what definitions the book is using, it appears that in the expression

{\left\langle {\psi&#039;} \right|\left\langle {\sigma&#039;} \right|{\mathbf{m}}\left| \sigma \right\rangle \left| \psi \right\rangle

|\psi\rangle is the state describing the spatial physics, while |\sigma\rangle is an internal spin state. If this is true, these states lie in different Hilbert spaces. Furthermore, the operator \mathbf{m} acts only on the spin states, not |\psi\rangle. So we can rearrange

{\left\langle {\psi&#039;} | \psi \right\rangle\left\langle {\sigma&#039;} \right|{\mathbf{m}}\left| \sigma \right\rangle .
 
Ah, of course... I should have known that. I will not forget it. Thanks, you have helped me a lot today. I really appreciate it.

Best wishes,
Niles.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
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...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Back
Top