A Little Trick for bra-ket notation over the Reals

  • Thread starter Thread starter brydustin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bra-ket Notation
brydustin
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
We know that < \phi | \psi >* = < \psi | \phi > where * denotes the complex conj.
so if \psi and \phi are ordinary real valued functions (as opposed to matrices or complex valued whatevers) can we also say:

< \phi | \psi > = < 1 |\phi \psi > = <\phi \psi | 1>

Or what if \phi = \psi, then above = < 1|\psi^2>=<\psi^2|1>

or if we have the position operator,R:

< \phi | R| \psi > = < 1 |R| \phi \psi > = < R| \phi \psi >= <\phi \psi | R > were we assume that the positions must be real because the (wave)functions are real valued.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, this isn't really bra-ket notation. You're just talking about a form <|> that takes two members of the set of real-valued functions on \mathbb R (or \mathbb R^3) to a real number. The equalities you're asking about hold if that form is defined by \langle f|g\rangle=\int f(x)g(x) dx for all f,g. However, the vector space that's interesting in QM is the vector space of complex-valued square-integrable functions on \mathbb R (or \mathbb R^3), and the constant function 1 isn't square-integrable.

In bra-ket notation, the members of the vector space would be written as |f> instead of f, and linear functionals that take those functions to complex numbers would be written as <f|.
 
Your notation doesn't really make sense. To be precise, kets are vectors in the Hilbert space and bras are their duals (that is, operators that map vector to a real (or complex) number). Their relation to wave functions becomes clear when you expand a ket in terms of states which are eigenstates of the position operator:
\begin{equation}|\psi> = \int \psi(x) |x>\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation}\psi(x) = <x|\psi> .\end{equation}

The crucial thing here that you probably hadn't realized is that when we write for example |\psi>, the \psi there is just some symbol to label the state (vector in the Hilbert space). Thus your notation |\psi \phi> doesn't make any sense as such. Of course we could define |\psi \phi> to mean for example a two-particle state where one particle is on state \psi and the other is on state \phi.
 
Echows said:
Your notation doesn't really make sense. To be precise, kets are vectors in the Hilbert space and bras are their duals (that is, operators that map vector to a real (or complex) number). Their relation to wave functions becomes clear when you expand a ket in terms of states which are eigenstates of the position operator:
\begin{equation}|\psi> = \int \psi(x) |x>\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation}\psi(x) = <x|\psi> .\end{equation}

The crucial thing here that you probably hadn't realized is that when we write for example |\psi>, the \psi there is just some symbol to label the state (vector in the Hilbert space). Thus your notation |\psi \phi> doesn't make any sense as such. Of course we could define |\psi \phi> to mean for example a two-particle state where one particle is on state \psi and the other is on state \phi.

I think you hit it on the nail... I was confusing the label of the state and the vector quantity. thanks
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top