meta user
network profile
| bio | website | ziga-lausegger.netau.net/… |
|---|---|---|
| location | Slovenia | |
| age | 27 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 6 months |
| seen | Jun 14 at 21:13 | |
| stats | profile views | 202 |
I love to program and crosscompile baremetal C programs for ARM based microcontrollers, I love physics and i love writing science documents/books in LaTeX. It amazes me how physics is connecting all science and is helping mathematics to evolve. In order for science profession to comunicate on a high level i advise everyone to use Linux, LaTeX and a good vector imaging program like Inkscape.
|
May 24 |
accepted | Observables - what are they? |
|
May 24 |
asked | Observables - what are they? |
|
May 21 |
accepted | Eigenvalue $a_n$ |
|
May 21 |
comment |
Eigenvalue $a_n$ I understand now, how to get an eigenvalue like $a_n = \langle\psi_n|\psi(t)\rangle$. What i was missing was the fact that eigenvectors are normalized. |
|
May 21 |
comment |
Eigenvalue $a_n$ About your anwser on Q1: But what if i would write $|\psi\rangle$ on the both sides instead of $|\psi\rangle$? Which one is correct? About your anwser on Q2: I can imagine at most 3 eigenvectors being orthogonal to each other and form a basis. All the rest i cannot visualize being orthogonal, but how is it possible? Is this just an abstraction and i shouldnt bother so much with it? I vizualize inner product is an analog to scalar product which is a projection of 1st vector's norm to the other vec. multiplied by a 2nd vector's norm. And vice versa - where order matters at inner pr. |
|
May 21 |
asked | Eigenvalue $a_n$ |
|
May 21 |
comment |
Some Dirac notation explanations So the general importance here is that matrix multiplication has to be defined and thie is why it is important if we use operator from the left or the right :) |
|
May 20 |
accepted | Some Dirac notation unclarities |
|
May 20 |
comment |
Some Dirac notation unclarities Have you read Zetilli's book? Is the chapter "Postulates of QM" the thing i need to read? It sure looks nice... |
|
May 20 |
comment |
Some Dirac notation unclarities Can you please than explain what is the difference in acting on a ket $\left| \psi \right\rangle$ with an operator $\hat{x}$ like this $\hat{x}\left|\psi\right\rangle$ or calculating the inner product $\left \langle x | \psi(t) \right \rangle$ - if possible, could you provide a physicall interpretation (after 3rd you have misstyped an inner product i think. There is a $|$ missing i think). |
|
May 20 |
comment |
Some Dirac notation unclarities 1st: You never used symbol $\Psi$. Why is so? Is this common praxis? 2nd: Does a $\left|\psi\right\rangle$ in a $\hat{H}\left|\psi \right\rangle = W \left|\psi \right\rangle$ means a time independant wave function? 3rd: I allso thought that if i act with a position operator $\hat{x}$ on a ket $\left|\psi(t)\right\rangle$ i can denote this as $\hat{x}\left| \psi(t)\right\rangle$ why did you write this as $\left\langle x | \psi(t)\right\rangle$? 3rd Does $\left\langle x | \psi(t)\right \rangle$ denote a wavefunction represented in position space/basis? Explain please in an edit. |
|
May 20 |
asked | Some Dirac notation unclarities |
|
May 18 |
comment |
Vector $\vec{z}$ and its conjugate transpose $\overline{\vec{v}^\top}$ - is it the same as $\left|z\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle z \right|$ Interesting but i don't understand quite that much yet. I hope i will in the future. |
|
May 18 |
accepted | Vector $\vec{z}$ and its conjugate transpose $\overline{\vec{v}^\top}$ - is it the same as $\left|z\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle z \right|$ |
|
May 18 |
comment |
Vector $\vec{z}$ and its conjugate transpose $\overline{\vec{v}^\top}$ - is it the same as $\left|z\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle z \right|$ Dirac notation is now somehow clearer to me :) |
|
May 18 |
comment |
Vector $\vec{z}$ and its conjugate transpose $\overline{\vec{v}^\top}$ - is it the same as $\left|z\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle z \right|$ If i look closer now i can see that $\left\langle A|B \right\rangle$ is an inner product between $\left|B\right\rangle$ and $\left|A\right\rangle$. This is correct right? Can I allso say that this is a matrix multiplication of an $\left|A\right\rangle^\dagger$ and $\left|B\right\rangle$? |
|
May 18 |
comment |
Vector $\vec{z}$ and its conjugate transpose $\overline{\vec{v}^\top}$ - is it the same as $\left|z\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle z \right|$ So my assumptions are correct :D TY! |
|
May 18 |
comment |
Vector $\vec{z}$ and its conjugate transpose $\overline{\vec{v}^\top}$ - is it the same as $\left|z\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle z \right|$ But they are all connected and i like it better like this. |
|
May 18 |
asked | Vector $\vec{z}$ and its conjugate transpose $\overline{\vec{v}^\top}$ - is it the same as $\left|z\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle z \right|$ |
|
May 12 |
comment |
Some Dirac notation explanations Thank you i think i now understand a bit more. |
