We used Dirac's bra-ket notation to denote a state vector, in general, as | ψ 〉. The obvious question is: what is this thing? We called it a vector because we use it like a vector: we multiply it with some number, and then add it to some other vector. So that's just what you did in high school, when you learned about real vector spaces. In this regard, it is good to remind you of the definition of a vector space. To put it simply, it is is a collection of objects called vectors, which may be added together, and multiplied by numbers. So we have two things here: the 'objects', and the 'numbers'. That's why we'd say that we have some vector space over a field of numbers. [The term 'field' just refers to an algebraic structure, so we can add and multiply and what have you.] Of course, what it means to 'add' two 'objects', and what it means to 'multiply' an object with a number, depends on the type of objects and, unsurprisingly, the type of numbers.
Huh? The type of number?! A number is a number, no?
No, hombre, no! We've got natural numbers, rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers—and you've probably heard of quaternions too – and, hence, 'multiplying' a 'number' with 'something else' can mean very different things. At the same time, the general idea is the general idea, so that's the same, indeed. 🙂 When using real numbers and the kind of vectors you are used to (i.e. Euclidean vectors), then the multiplication amounts to a re-scaling of the vector, and so that's why a real number is often referred to as a scalar. At the same time, anything that can be used to multiply a vector is often referred to as a scalar in math so… Well… Terminology is often quite confusing. In fact, I'll give you some more examples of confusing terminology in a moment. But let's first look at our 'objects' here, i.e. our 'vectors'.
Writing our state vector | ψ 〉, | φ 〉 or | χ 〉 like this also defines these coefficients or coordinates Ci. Unlike our state vectors, or our base states, Ci is an actual number. It has to be, of course: it's the complex number that makes sense of the whole expression. To be precise, Ci is an amplitude, or a wavefunction, i.e. a function depending on both space and time. In our previous posts, we limited the analysis to amplitudes varying in time only, and we'll continue to do so for a while. However, at some point, you'll get the full picture.
I just combined the notations for 〈 I | and | III 〉. Can you now see the similarity between the the 〈 i | j〉 bra-ket and the ei·ej product? It really is the same: you just need to respect the subtleties in regard to writing the 〈 i | and | j 〉 vector, or the ei and ej vectors, as a row vector or a column vector respectively.
I promised I'd say something more about confusing terminology so let me do that here. We call a set of base states a 'representation', and writing a state vector in terms of a set of base states is often referred to as a 'projection' of that state into the base set. Again, we can see it's sort of a mathematical projection, rather than a geometrical one. But it makes sense. In any case, that's enough on state vectors and base states.
OK. That's it on this.
One more thing, perhaps. We'll often have states, or base states, that make sense, in a physical sense, that is. But it's not always the case: we'll sometimes use base states that may not represent some situation we're likely to encounter, but that make sense mathematically. We gave the example of the 'mathematical' | I 〉 and | II 〉 base states, versus the 'physical' | 1 〉 and | 2 〉 base states, in our post on the ammonia molecule, so I won't say more about this here. Do keep it in mind though. Sometimes it may feel like nothing makes sense, physically, but it usually does mathematically and, therefore, all usually comes out alright in the end. 🙂 To be precise, what we did there, was to choose base states with a unambiguous, i.e. a definite, energy level. That made our calculations much easier, and the end result was the same, indeed!
So… Well… I'll let this sink in, and move on to the next topic.
Two equations and two functions – C1 = C1(t) and C2 = C2(t) – so we should be able to solve this thing, right? Well… No. We don't know those Hij coefficients. As I explained in that post, they also evolve in time, so we should write them as Hij(t) instead of Hij tout court, and so it messes the whole thing up. We have two equations and six functions really. Of course, there's always a way out, but I won't dwell on that here—not now at least. What I want to do here is look at the Hamiltonian as an operator.
Look at this! The right-hand side of this expression is exactly the same as that A | χ 〉 format we presented when introducing the concept of an operator. [In fact, when I say you should 'abstract away' from the | j 〉 bit, then you should think of the 'Great Law' and that matrix notation above.] So H is an operator and, therefore, it's something which operates on a state to produce a new state.
The formula is pretty straightforward. [If you don't think so, then just write it all out using the matrix notation.] But you may wonder how it works exactly… Well… Sorry. I don't want to copy all of Feynman here, so I'll refer you to him on this. In fact, the proof of this formula is actually very straightforward, and so you should be able to get through it with the math you got here. You may even understand Feynman's illustration of it for the 'special case' when base states are, indeed, those mathematically convenient base states with definite energy levels.