Postulates of Quantum Mechanics

Postulate 1. The state of a quantum mechanical system is completely specified

by a complex function (r, t). The wave function must be continuous and finite everywhere, and must satisfy the following condition:

Where d is a volume element located at r.

Postulate 2. To every observable in classical mechanics there corresponds a

linear, Hermitian operator in quantum mechanics. These operators act in combination upon the wave function. Table of physical observables and their corresponding quantum operators (single particle) Observable Name Position Momentum Dynamic variable Total energy A(r, p) A( ,
)

Observable Symbol

Operator Symbol

Operator Operation Multiply by

We now consider the non-relativistic energy relation: ( )

We shall now replace all the dynamic variables by their respective operators, which shall all act in combination upon the wave function (r, t), as stated in the second postulate:

The above equation is called Schrdingers equation, and it describes the evolution of the wave function under non-relativistic limits. One can similarly construct, though with much difficulty, similar wave equations which are relativistic.

Postulate 3. An arbitrary state can be expanded in the complete set of

eigenvectors of an operator as follows:

where n may go to infinity. We only know that the measurement of A will yield one of the values ai, but we don't know which one. However, we do know the probability that eigenvalue ai will occur--it is the absolute value squared of the coefficient, |ci|2.
Hence, the average value of the observable corresponding to is given by

An important second half of the third postulate is that, after measurement yields some eigenvalue ai, the wave function immediately collapses into the corresponding eigenstate i (in the case that ai is degenerate, then becomes the projection of onto the degenerate subspace). Thus, measurement affects the state of the system.

A discussion on the postulates:

One can mathematically show that for any continuous linear operator A: H H, there exists a unique continuous linear operator A*: H H with the following property:

Where the inner product of the vector space constituted by wave functions (called a Hilbert space) is defined as: <x, y> = x*y, with x* representing the complex conjugate of x. The operator A* is called the adjoint of A. If A* = A, then the operator A is called a Hermitian operator. In case A* = A-1, the operator A is called a Unitary operator. Hermitian operators always have real eigenvalues, which is consistent with the fact that measurements always return one of the eigenvalues of the operator corresponding to the observable. With regard to the third postulate, it is interesting to note that we can only know the probability of finding the particle in a particular state, and this is not due to the inadequacy of quantum mechanics. The reason we can only know about the probability that a measurement will return a particular value is due to the fact that the various dynamic variables which we employ in order to study microscopic particles do not have well-defined values. In short, the particle doesnt have a welldefined state before the measurement occurs. Let us take an example where we are measuring the position of the particle. The particle doesnt have an exact position until the position is measured. The act of measurement forces the particle to randomly assume some position, with the probability density given by the modulus of the wave function. This event is called the wave function collapse, because after the measurement, the wave function collapses to become peaked at the measured value. Thus, there are two different kinds of physical processes which occur in quantum mechanics: the ordinary ones, in which the state of a system evolves undisturbed according to some wave equation (the Schrdinger equation is a good approximation for non-relativistic limits), and measurements, which cause the wave function to suddenly and discontinuously collapse. The mechanism of collapse is unknown, and the word measurement yet lacks a rigorous definition.

Moreover, since the particle doesnt have a well-defined position before measurement, we can no longer give meaningful physical interpretations to terms like velocity, momentum, trajectory of the particle, etc. In fact, these terms are not well-defined for microscopic particles, because such particles simply dont have a well-defined position, momentum, etc. before they are measured. To make the matters worse, it turns out that there are certain pairs of conjugate variables, like position and momentum, which cannot be simultaneously measured. It is engrained within the very nature of the wave function that it cannot collapse into a state which simultaneously has an exact position and momentum. Thus, if we know with certainty about the exact position of a particle at some instant, the particle simply wont have a well-defined momentum, such that if the very next moment its momentum were measured, it could turn out to be anything. The more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. A formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position x and the standard deviation of momentum p is given as:

Particles in quantum mechanics have a quantum-mechanical property called spin. Spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, composite particles (hadrons), and atomic nuclei. As the name suggests, spin was originally conceived as the rotation of a particle around some axis. This picture is correct so far as spin obeys the same mathematical laws as quantized angular momenta do. On the other hand, the spin of an elementary particle is a truly intrinsic physical property, akin to the particle's electric charge and rest mass. Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the spin possessed by such particles cannot be explained by postulating that they are made up of even smaller particles rotating about a common center of mass; as far as can be determined, these elementary particles have no inner structure.

When the idea of electron spin was first introduced in 1925, even Wolfgang Pauli had trouble accepting Ralph Kronig's model. The problem was not that a rotating charged particle would have given rise to a magnetic field but that the electron was so small that the equatorial speed of the electron would have to be greater than the speed of light for the magnetic moment to be of the observed strength. In 1930, Paul Dirac developed a new version of the Wave Equation which was relativistically invariant (unlike Schrdinger's one), and predicted the magnetic moment correctly, and at the same time treated the electron as a point particle. In the Dirac equation all four quantum numbers including the additional quantum number, s arose naturally during its solution. Identical particles, also called indistinguishable or indiscernible particles, are particles that cannot be distinguished from one another, even in principle. Species of identical particles include elementary particles such as electrons, and, with some clauses, composite particles such as atoms and molecules. There are two ways in which one might distinguish between particles. The first method relies on differences in the particles' intrinsic physical properties, such as mass, electric charge, and spin. If differences exist, we can distinguish between the particles by measuring the relevant properties. However, it is an empirical fact that microscopic particles of the same species have completely equivalent physical properties. For instance, every electron in the universe has exactly the same electric charge; this is why we can speak of such a thing as "the charge of the electron". Even if the particles have equivalent physical properties, there remains a second method for distinguishing between particles, which is to track the trajectory of each particle. As long as we can measure the position of each particle with infinite precision (even when the particles collide), there would be no ambiguity about which particle is which. The problem with this approach is that it contradicts the principles of quantum mechanics. According to quantum theory, the particles do not possess definite positions during the periods between measurements. Instead, they are governed by wavefunctions that give the probability of finding a particle at each position. As time passes, the wavefunctions tend to spread out and overlap. Once this happens,

it becomes impossible to determine, in a subsequent measurement, which of the particle positions correspond to those measured earlier. The particles are then said to be identical, or indistinguishable. Two indistinguishable particles, occupying two separate points, have only one state, not two. This means that if we exchange the positions of the particles, we do not get a new state, but rather the same physical state. In fact, one cannot tell which particle is in which position. A physical state is described by a wavefunction, or more generally by a vector, which is also called a "state"; if interactions with other particles are ignored, then two different wavefunctions are physically equivalent if their absolute value is equal. So, while the physical state does not change under the exchange of the particles' positions, the wavefunction may get a minus sign. Bosons (particles with whole number spin) are particles whose wavefunction is symmetric under such an exchange, so if we swap the particles the wavefunction does not change. Fermions (particles with half-integer spin) are particles whose wavefunction is antisymmetric, so under such a swap the wavefunction gets a minus sign, meaning that the amplitude for two identical fermions to occupy the same state must be zero. This is the Pauli Exclusion Principle: two identical fermions cannot occupy the same state. This rule does not hold for bosons.