Vector state

Another approach involves starting with an initial wavefimction Iq, represented on a grid, then generating // /q, and consider that tiiis, after orthogonalization to Jq, defines a new state vector. Successive applications //can now be used to define an orthogonal set of vectors which defines as a Krylov space via the iteration (n = 0,.. ., A)... 

The END equations are integrated to yield the time evolution of the wave function parameters for reactive processes from an initial state of the system. The solution is propagated until such a time that the system has clearly reached the final products. Then, the evolved state vector may be projected against a number of different possible final product states to yield coiresponding transition probability amplitudes. Details of the END dynamics can be depicted and cross-section cross-sections and rate coefficients calculated. 

Each of the factorized operators are displacement operators and can thus be applied seriatim to the initial state vector to give the final solution. 

Discrete-time solution of the state vector differential equation... 

An alternative procedure is the dynamic programming method of Bellman (1957) which is based on the principle of optimality and the imbedding approach. The principle of optimality yields the Hamilton-Jacobi partial differential equation, whose solution results in an optimal control policy. Euler-Lagrange and Pontrya-gin s equations are applicable to systems with non-linear, time-varying state equations and non-quadratic, time varying performance criteria. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation is usually solved for the important and special case of the linear time-invariant plant with quadratic performance criterion (called the performance index), which takes the form of the matrix Riccati (1724) equation. This produces an optimal control law as a linear function of the state vector components which is always stable, providing the system is controllable. 

The tracking or servomechanism problem is defined in section 9.1.1(e), and is directed at applying a control u(t) to drive a plant so that the state vector t) follows a desired state trajectory r(t) in some optimal manner. 

In reverse-time, starting with P(A ) = 0 at NT = 20 seconds, compute the state feedback gain matrix K(kT) and Riccati matrix P(kT) using equations (9.29) and (9.30). Aiso in reverse time, use the desired state vector r(/c7 ) to drive the tracking equation (9.53) with the boundary condition s(N) = 0 and hence compute the command vector y kT). 

In forward-time, use the command vector vf/cT) and state vector xf/cT) to caicuiate Uopif/cT) in equation (9.55) and hence, using the piant state transition equation (9.56) caicuiate the state trajectories. 

In the design of state observers in section 8.4.3, it was assumed that the measurements y = Cx were noise free. In practice, this is not usually the case and therefore the observed state vector x may also be contaminated with noise. 

It is convenient to consider the operability of a system as a function of its components /=/(C, c .c i). If a components operability is identified as 1 for operating and 0 for failed, the status of the components at any time may be represented by a system state vector =(1,1,1, 0, 0) meaning that components 1, 2, and 3 are operating and components 4 and 5 have failed. Requirements for system operability may be represented by a matrix 101 that has Is where components are required and Os where they are non-essential the result is ( ) = lOlilt, where the rules... 

This relation defines a time-dependent column vector a. Because = 1, Eq. (7-50) implies afa = 1 a is a unit vector. This is true of all state vectors that correspond to normalized state functions. Substitution of (7-50) into (7-49), subsequent multiplication by u, and integration yield the Schrodinger equation (sometimes called the equation of motion ) for the component ar... 

The last interesting feature of p to be considered here is its function as a projection operator. The meaning of that phrase will be clear from the following computation. Let p be compounded from the state vector a, and let it act on any vector x. Then... 

A. —The states of any physical system have the same properties as vectors in abstract Hilbert space, and there exists a correspondence between the states of a physical system and the elements of which are in what follows to be called the state vectors of the system. 

B. —The state vector of any system remains some well-defined function of time except in so far as interaction occurs with some other system, when it may change to some other state vector in 3 . Laboratory measurement of any property of a system necessarily involves interaction between the system and the measuring equipment, and in general changes the state vector of the system. Now any change of vector in is equivalent to a transformation in 3, or in other words to an operator in 3. This leads to the following postulate ... 

Example, Free Particle. In this case the hamiltonian is H = Pa/2m and the state vector t> satisfies the equation... 

Now let us use the set, <0> to form a matrix representation of some operator Q at time hi assuming that Q is not explicitly a function of time. The expectation value of Q in the various states, changes in time only by virtue of the time-dependence of the state vectors used in the representation. However, because this dependence is equivalent to a unitary transformation, the matrix at time t is derived from the matrix at time t0 by such a unitary transformation, and we know that this cannot change the trace of the matrix. Thus if Q — WXR our result entails that it is not possible to change the ensemble average of R, which is just the trace of Q. 

The covariant amplitudes describing one-, two-, etc., particle systems can be defined in terms of the Heisenberg field operators (x) as follows oonsider a one-particle system described by the state vector IT) Since it describes a one-particle system, it has the property that... 

The commutations (9-416)-( 9-419) guarantee that the state vectors are antisymmetric and that the occupation number operators N (p,s) and N+(q,t) can have only eigenvalues 0 and 1 (which is, of course, what is meant by the statement that particles and antiparticles separately obey Fermi-Dirac etatistios). In fact one readily verifies that... 

In concluding this section we briefly establish the connection between the Dirac theory for a single isolated free particle described in the previous section and the present formalism. If T> is the state vector describing a one-particle state, iV T> = 1 T> consider the amplitude... 

We next introduce the Meller wave operator l(+> which transforms the state vectors Qn> into T >+... 

In a quantum mechanical framework, Postulate 1 remains as stated. It implies that there exists a well-defined connection and correspondence between the labels attributed to the space-time points by each observer, between the state vectors each observer attributes to a given physical system, and between observables of the system. Postulate 2 is usually formulated in terms of transition probabilities, and requires that the transition probability be independent of the frame of reference. It should be stated explicitly at this point that we shall formulate the notion of invariance in terms of the concept of bodily identity, wherein a single physical system is viewed by two observers who, in general, will have different relations to the system. 

We must next consider more precisely the connection between the description of bodily identical states by the two observers (the requirements of Postulate 1). Quite in general, in fact, a physical theory, and quantum electrodynamics in particular, is fully defined only if the connection between the description of bodily identical states by (equivalent) observers is known for every state of the system and for every pair of observers. Since the observers are equivalent every state which can be described by 0 can also be described by O. Given a bodily state of the same system, observer 0 will ascribe to it a state vector Y0> in his Hilbert space and observer O will attribute to it a state vector T0.) in his Hilbert space. The above formulation of invariance means that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the vectors Y0> and Y0.) used by observers 0 and O to describe bodily the same state.3 This correspondence guarantees that the two Hilbert spaces are in fact isomorphic. It is, therefore, possible for the two observers to agree to describe states of the system by vectors in the same Hilbert space. A similar statement can be made for the observables there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the operators Q0 and Q0>, which observers 0 and O attribute to observables. The consistency of the theory (Postulate 2) demands, however, that the two observers make the same prediction as the outcome of the same experiment performed on bodily the same system. This requires the relation... 

---