A Little Trick for bra-ket notation over the Reals

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter brydustin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bra-ket Notation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the use of bra-ket notation in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the confusion surrounding real-valued functions and their representation in Hilbert space. It establishes that the notation < \phi | \psi > does not hold in the context of real-valued functions, as the correct interpretation involves complex-valued square-integrable functions. The distinction between kets and bras is emphasized, with kets representing vectors in Hilbert space and bras acting as duals mapping vectors to real or complex numbers. The conversation concludes with a recognition of the importance of correctly labeling states in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of bra-ket notation in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with Hilbert space concepts
  • Knowledge of complex-valued square-integrable functions
  • Basic principles of quantum mechanics and wave functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about complex-valued functions and their applications in quantum theory
  • Explore the mathematical foundations of bra-ket notation
  • Investigate the role of eigenstates and operators in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Quantum mechanics students, physicists, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum theory will benefit from this discussion.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K