Damn, couldn’t resist walking out on Oh Canada during “New math” objections.

October 15, 2015 Incoherent ramblings , ,

I made the mistake of walking away from Oh Canada during a conversation.  I don’t respect the training in conformity and patriotism (a trait second only to religion for inspiring war) that the Oh Canada ritual provides.  This and other similar patriotism rituals like the US pledge of allegiance have no more business in the schools than the old religious pledges that we used to have to mumble as kids, not knowing what we were even saying.  In my opinion, Oh Canada is an important brainwashing technique, and trains us to love our country regardless of the actions done in our name by the government and its unending bureaucracy.  This ritual trains us in blind obedience.  The end result is that we are comfortable dismissing real insanities like the political party whip, a true destroyer of democratic representation.  With blind love for our country we can ignore insanities of our government, thinking of them as yet another facet of Canadian values.  It is training to not question the system imposed on us.
I know that I am extremely isolated in my distaste for Oh Canada, and I haven’t figured out a good strategy for dealing with it.  We’ve been trained to respect it with so much force, regardless of there being no good reason to do so, that breaking with the convention unfortunately upsets people when they see it done.  Once I came to the conclusion that Oh Canada should not be respected, it was hard to fight the training in conformity that I had been subjected to.  It would be much easier to just stand and pretend to like it, and let the old feelings of patriotism back in, but I feel I have a moral obligation not to do so.
Unfortunately, walking out on the go-to-war-for-country song, interrupted my conversation with Mr Dixon (Unionville public school principle) on the more important topic of some bizarre multiplication techniques that are being taught in fourth grade, techniques that have the side effect of severe confusion, and making mathematics suddenly a hated subject, where it used to be loved.  This hatred is coming from a boy with a natural aptitude for numbers, who for example, memorized 50 digits of pi in three days just for the sheer pleasure of doing so.  Because of the effort of trying to keep the “four multiplication methods” all straight in his head, he’s not sure how to do the most important of them all: the standard multiplication technique that has been the workhorse of paper multiplication for hundreds of years before these bizarre teaching ideas invaded the curriculum.  I recall when my kids came home with these techniques.  They had the good sense to go through the motions mechanically and forget about them after that.  To spend all this effort just for the best case option of having all the kids that learn it forget it after the test is nonsensical to say the least.  But when it also has the side effect of destroying love for the subject, it is unforgivable.

Letter to Liberal Markham-Unionville Liberal representive

October 14, 2015 Incoherent ramblings , ,

Hello Mrs Jiang,

I’m interested in your position on two topics that probably rule out my vote for the liberal party.  Before the vote, I am giving you a chance to defend or justify your stance on these policies.

The first is the party whip.  This is, in my opinion, a destroyer of democracy, and effectively ensures that local constituents have no possibility of representation.  A meaningless vote every four years is made further meaningless by requiring that “representatives” vote the party-line.  Even school children realize the absurdity of such a policy, but such absurdity appears to be not only tolerated but desired by Canadian politicians.

The second is the Liberal vote for bill C-51 required by the party leadership.  I’ve appended correspondence that shows my position on this bill to the incumbent “representative” for Markham-Unionville.  His reply was voting for the bill, which did not surprise me.

Peeter Joot

please note that I make a copy of all political correspondence (or lack thereof) available online.
Appended copy of my “take a firm stand” letter to John McCallum, incumbent Markham-Unionville “representitive”.

PHY1520H Graduate Quantum Mechanics. Lecture 8: Dirac equation in 1D. Taught by Prof. Arun Paramekanti

October 13, 2015 phy1520 , , , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

Disclaimer

Peeter’s lecture notes from class. These may be incoherent and rough.

These are notes for the UofT course PHY1520, Graduate Quantum Mechanics, taught by Prof. Paramekanti.

Schrodinger Derivation

Recall that a “derivation” of the Schrodinger equation can be associated with the following equivalences

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:300}
E \leftrightarrow \Hbar \omega \leftrightarrow i \Hbar \PD{t}{}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:320}
p \leftrightarrow \Hbar k \leftrightarrow -i \Hbar \PD{t}{}
\end{equation}

so that the classical energy relationship

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:20}
E = \frac{p^2}{2m}
\end{equation}

takes the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:40}
i \Hbar \PD{t}{} = -\frac{\Hbar^2}{2m}.
\end{equation}

How do we do this in a relativistic context where the energy momentum relationship is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:60}
E = \sqrt{ p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 } \approx m c^2 + \frac{p^2}{2m} + \cdots
\end{equation}

where \( m \) is the rest mass and \( c \) is the speed of light.

Attempt I

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:80}
E = m c^2 + \frac{p^2}{2m} + (…) p^4 + (…) p^6 + \cdots
\end{equation}

First order in time, but infinite order in space \( \partial/\partial x \). Useless.

Attempt II

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:100}
E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.
\end{equation}

This gives

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:120}
-\Hbar^2 \PDSq{t}{\psi} = – \Hbar^2 c^2 \PDSq{x}{\psi} + m^2 c^4 \psi.
\end{equation}

This is the Klein-Gordon equation, which is second order in time.

Attempt III

Suppose that we have the matrix

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:140}
\begin{bmatrix}
p c & m c^2 \\
m c^2 & – p c
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}

or

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:160}
\begin{bmatrix}
m c^2 & i p c \\
-i p c & – m c^2
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}

These both happen to have eigenvalues \( \lambda_{\pm} = \pm \sqrt{p^2 c^2} \). For those familiar with the Dirac matrices, this amounts to a choice for different representations of the gamma matrices.

Working with \ref{eqn:qmLecture8:140}, which has some nicer features than other possible representations, we seek a state

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:180}
\Bpsi =
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1(x, t) \\
\psi_2(x, t) \\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}

where we aim to write down an equation for this composite state.

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:200}
i \Hbar \PD{t}{\Bpsi} = \BH \Bpsi
\end{equation}

Assuming the matrix is the Hamiltonian, multiplying that with the composite state gives

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:220}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
i \Hbar \PD{t}{\psi_1} \\
i \Hbar \PD{t}{\psi_1}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p} c & m c^2 \\
m c^2 & – \hat{p} c
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1(x, t) \\
\psi_2(x, t) \\
\end{bmatrix} \\
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p} c \psi_1 + m c^2 \psi_2 \\
m c^2 \psi_1 – \hat{p} c \psi_2
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

What happens when we square this?

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:240}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ i \Hbar \PD{t}{} }^2 \Bpsi
&= \BH \BH \Bpsi \\
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p} c & m c^2 \\
m c^2 & – \hat{p} c
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p} c & m c^2 \\
m c^2 & – \hat{p} c
\end{bmatrix}
\Bpsi \\
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p}^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 & 0 \\
0 & \hat{p}^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

That is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:260}
– \Hbar^2 \PDSq{t}{} \Bpsi
=
\lr{ \hat{p}^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 } \mathbf{1} \Bpsi,
\end{equation}

or more exactly

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:280}
– \Hbar^2 \PDSq{t}{} \psi_{1,2}
=
\lr{ \hat{p}^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 } \psi_{1,2}.
\end{equation}

This recovers the Klein Gordon equation for each of the wave functions \( \psi_1, \psi_2 \).

Instead of squaring the operators, lets try to solve the first order equation. To do so we’ll want to diagonalize \( \BH \).

Before doing that, let’s write out the Hamiltonian in an alternate but useful form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:340}
\BH
=
\hat{p} c
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{bmatrix}
+
m c^2
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
= \hat{p} c \hat{\sigma}_z + m c^2 \hat{\sigma}_x.
\end{equation}

We have two types of operators in the mix here. We have matrix operators that act on the wave function matrices, as well as derivative operators that act on the components of those matrices.

We have

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:360}
\hat{\sigma}_z
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
-\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}

and

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:380}
\hat{\sigma}_x
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_2 \\
\psi_1 \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}

Because the derivative actions of \( \hat{p} \) and the matrix operators are independent, we see that these operators commute. For example

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:400}
\hat{\sigma}_z \hat{p}
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\hat{\sigma}_z
\begin{bmatrix}
-i \Hbar \PD{x}{\psi_1} \\
-i \Hbar \PD{x}{\psi_2} \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
-i \Hbar \PD{x}{\psi_1} \\
i \Hbar \PD{x}{\psi_2} \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\hat{p}
\hat{\sigma}_z
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}

Diagonalizing it

Suppose the wave function matrix has the structure

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:420}
\Bpsi =
\begin{bmatrix}
f_{+} \\
f_{-} \\
\end{bmatrix}
e^{i k x}.
\end{equation}

We’ll plug this into the Schrodinger equation and see what we get.

more correspondence with Markham-Unionville Green Party rep., Elvin Kao

October 9, 2015 Incoherent ramblings , , , , ,

I’d asked of Elvin Kao, the local green party candidate

It is refreshing to hear of this party position on whipping votes, and on bill C-51.  Can you please provide me a reference to the location of your party documentation where that no-whip policy is stated.
Asking CSIS for conclusive data that supports their funding is like asking somebody “would you like a raise?”.  You will surely be returned data that will support the case for more and more invasive policing.
I also asked about your position on Canada’s military.  My logical expectation that the Green party position on offensive military would be severe, since Military forces everywhere are easily argued to be the most flagrant and blatant polluters in existence.  Consider, for example, the environmental damage of all the nuclear bombs that have been deployed and tested, the all-species genetic damage due to depleted Uranium deployment in Iraq, and the intense carbon footprint of so many air, ground, and water fleets.  Does your party take an explicit position on the scale and deployment of Canada’s military forces?
What is your position on the Canadian bombing of Syria?  Recalling other such targets like Serbia, it is easy to see that Canada has been historically complicit as acting as a proxy for the United States in its zeal to bring peace with bombs.  I find it odd that there is lots of coverage in the Canadian press on the Syrian refugee crisis, but nothing on our direct contribution to that crisis.

His response:

The Green party does not have whipped votes.
https://www.greenparty.ca/en/convention-2014/voting/motions/g14-p31

We want government reform that will end all whipped votes, so that MPs can represent their constituents.
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/democratic-reform

In terms of CSIS and showing results for the allocation of resources should not be a proposition they should be shocked at and is the kind of oversight that should be mandatory so that we do not have unnecessary government overhead.

The Green party believes that Canada should be a peace keeping country, and will only engage in war as a last resort. Any strike on a nation or group should have approval from UN Security Council. Canada for the first time has disappeared from international stage as it has lost its seat from the UN Security Council. In terms of scale of Canadian forces deployment based on environmental impact, there is no policy. With Canadian and other lives to consider during those moments, I do not believe we should consider the environmental impact in those instances and we should make sure that our Canadian troops are well equipped. The environmental impact is small compared to Canadian industries, producing everyday, and other polluting problems.

Canada has lost its touch as a peace keeping country and has blindly followed all US led missions. I do not believe that air strikes in that region are helping, and creates more radicals for western hatred. There is too much conflict between multiple groups in the Syrian civil war and it would be difficult to choose sides.

Thanks for the questions,

I have a lot of trouble with anybody that bandies about the putrid peace keeping doublespeak when it really means warfare, often blatantly offensive warfare.  Elvin is already working hard at speaking in the meaningless way of a politician despite being really new to the game.

Just because the UN, effectively a puppet organization for the United States, sanctions the oppression of the current enemy de-jour, doesn’t mean that it is something that I want to be funding with the taxes that are collected from me like it or not.

It appears that I am left without any representation in the current collection of candidates for my riding.  The liberal and conservative parties are for all intents and purposes the same despite the different colours that they use in the advertising.  When push comes to shove a leader from on-high, serving interests that we’ll never know the full details of, sets the party policy and party members who choose to deviate will be expelled.  Most probably wouldn’t care to rock the boat and are willyfully ignorant to the fact that they are meaningless and purposeless.  The NDP is a communist party want-to-be, and I can’t vote for them.  Collective socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people so far.  How many more people have to die before people finally realize it’s a bad idea?  I don’t believe that a vote for the NDP means we’ll have any immediate prospect of such death here in Canada, but taking any steps in that direction doesn’t seem prudent.

I don’t trust the language that this Green party rep uses.  He appears to be is trying too hard to be a politician, which essentially means a liar.  Perhaps he’s the least evil of the options around, but I may just explicitly vote none of the above.

1D SHO linear superposition that maximizes expectation

October 7, 2015 phy1520 , , , , , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

Question: 1D SHO linear superposition that maximizes expectation ([1] pr. 2.17)

For a 1D SHO

(a)

Construct a linear combination of \( \ket{0}, \ket{1} \) that maximizes \( \expectation{x} \) without using wave functions.

(b)

How does this state evolve with time?

(c)

Evaluate \( \expectation{x} \) using the Schrodinger picture.

(d)

Evaluate \( \expectation{x} \) using the Heisenberg picture.

(e)

Evaluate \( \expectation{(\Delta x)^2} \).

Answer

(a)

Forming

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:20}
\ket{\psi} = \frac{\ket{0} + \sigma \ket{1}}{\sqrt{1 + \Abs{\sigma}^2}}
\end{equation}

the position expectation is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:40}
\bra{\psi} x \ket{\psi}
=
\inv{1 + \Abs{\sigma}^2} \lr{ \bra{0} + \sigma^\conj \bra{1} } \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \lr{ a^\dagger + a } \lr{ \ket{0} + \sigma \ket{1} }.
\end{equation}

Evaluating the action of the operators on the kets, we’ve got

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:60}
\lr{ a^\dagger + a } \lr{ \ket{0} + \sigma \ket{1} }
=
\ket{1} + \sqrt{2} \sigma \ket{2} + \sigma \ket{0}.
\end{equation}

The \( \ket{2} \) term is killed by the bras, leaving

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:80}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{x}
&=
\inv{1 + \Abs{\sigma}^2} \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \lr{ \sigma + \sigma^\conj} \\
&=
\frac{\sqrt{2} x_0 \textrm{Re} \sigma}{1 + \Abs{\sigma}^2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Any imaginary component in \( \sigma \) will reduce the expectation, so we are constrained to picking a real value.

The derivative of

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:100}
f(\sigma) = \frac{\sigma}{1 + \sigma^2},
\end{equation}

is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:120}
f'(\sigma) = \frac{1 – \sigma^2}{(1 + \sigma^2)^2}.
\end{equation}

That has zeros at \( \sigma = \pm 1 \). The second derivative is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:140}
f”(\sigma) = \frac{-2 \sigma (3 – \sigma^2)}{(1 + \sigma^2)^3}.
\end{equation}

That will be negative (maximum for the extreme value) at \( \sigma = 1 \), so the linear superposition of these first two energy eigenkets that maximizes the position expectation is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:160}
\psi = \inv{\sqrt{2}}\lr{ \ket{0} + \ket{1} }.
\end{equation}

That maximized position expectation is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:180}
\expectation{x}
=
\frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}}.
\end{equation}

(b)

The time evolution is given by

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:200}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{\Psi(t)}
&= e^{-iH t/\Hbar} \inv{\sqrt{2}}\lr{ \ket{0} + \ket{1} } \\
&= \inv{\sqrt{2}}\lr{ e^{-i(0+ \ifrac{1}{2})\Hbar \omega t/\Hbar} \ket{0} +
e^{-i(1+ \ifrac{1}{2})\Hbar \omega t/\Hbar} \ket{1} } \\
&= \inv{\sqrt{2}}\lr{ e^{-i \omega t/2} \ket{0} + e^{-3 i \omega t/2} \ket{1} }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

(c)

The position expectation in the Schrodinger representation is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:220}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{x(t)}
&=
\inv{2}
\lr{ e^{i \omega t/2} \bra{0} + e^{3 i \omega t/2} \bra{1} } \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \lr{ a^\dagger + a }
\lr{ e^{-i \omega t/2} \ket{0} + e^{-3 i \omega t/2} \ket{1} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0}{2\sqrt{2}}
\lr{ e^{i \omega t/2} \bra{0} + e^{3 i \omega t/2} \bra{1} }
\lr{ e^{-i \omega t/2} \ket{1} + e^{-3 i \omega t/2} \sqrt{2} \ket{2} + e^{-3 i \omega t/2} \ket{0} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \cos(\omega t).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

(d)

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:240}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{x(t)}
&=
\inv{2}
\lr{ \bra{0} + \bra{1} } \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}}
\lr{ a^\dagger e^{i\omega t} + a e^{-i \omega t} }
\lr{ \ket{0} + \ket{1} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0}{2 \sqrt{2}}
\lr{ \bra{0} + \bra{1} }
\lr{ e^{i\omega t} \ket{1} + \sqrt{2} e^{i\omega t} \ket{2} + e^{-i \omega t} \ket{0} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \cos(\omega t),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

matching the calculation using the Schrodinger picture.

(e)

Let’s use the Heisenberg picture for the uncertainty calculation. Using the calculation above we have

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:260}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{x^2}
&=
\inv{2} \frac{x_0^2}{2}
\lr{ e^{-i\omega t} \bra{1} + \sqrt{2} e^{-i\omega t} \bra{2} + e^{i \omega t} \bra{0} }
\lr{ e^{i\omega t} \ket{1} + \sqrt{2} e^{i\omega t} \ket{2} + e^{-i \omega t} \ket{0} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0^2}{4} \lr{ 1 + 2 + 1} \\
&=
x_0^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The uncertainty is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:280}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{(\Delta x)^2}
&=
\expectation{x^2} – \expectation{x}^2 \\
&=
x_0^2 – \frac{x_0^2}{2} \cos^2(\omega t) \\
&=
\frac{x_0^2}{2} \lr{ 2 – \cos^2(\omega t) } \\
&=
\frac{x_0^2}{2} \lr{ 1 + \sin^2(\omega t) }
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

References

[1] Jun John Sakurai and Jim J Napolitano. Modern quantum mechanics. Pearson Higher Ed, 2014.