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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of bra-ket notation in the context of real-valued functions and their relation to quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of using this notation for real functions, particularly in relation to inner products and operators.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if \(\psi\) and \(\phi\) are real-valued functions, then certain equalities involving bra-ket notation could hold, such as \(\langle \phi | \psi \rangle = \langle 1 | \phi \psi \rangle\).
  • Another participant clarifies that the notation being used does not conform to traditional bra-ket notation, emphasizing that the inner product should be defined for square-integrable functions and that the constant function 1 is not square-integrable.
  • It is noted that kets represent vectors in Hilbert space and bras are duals that map vectors to real or complex numbers, with an example provided on how to express wave functions in terms of position eigenstates.
  • A participant acknowledges confusion between the label of the state and the vector quantity, indicating a misunderstanding of the notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity and interpretation of the proposed notation. There is no consensus on the appropriateness of the bra-ket notation as applied to real-valued functions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the definitions and assumptions surrounding the use of bra-ket notation, particularly in relation to the properties of real-valued functions versus complex-valued functions in quantum mechanics.

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
6K
  • · 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
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K