A question about the linear product

  • Thread starter Thread starter somy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linear Product
somy
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
A question about the "linear product"

Hi everyone;
As you know, we assume the answer of the dot product as a complex number: <a|b>

Also, we have the property: <a|b>=<b|a>*


I just want to know how can we say this, or is it just a definition?
Thanks a lot.
Somy :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, of course, it IS a definition, but there is a reason for that specific definition.

The absolute value of a real number can be defined in two ways:
"algebraically" as |x|= sqrt(x*x) or
"geometrically" as the distance from x to 0 on the number line ("distance", of course, is always positive. The distance from 4 to 0 and the distance from -4 to 0 are both 4).

Extending to complex number, if we think of the number z= x+ iy as the point in the "complex plane" (x,y), then the distance from (x,y) to (0, 0) is sqrt(x2+ y2). This is NOT sqrt(z.z) but is sqrt(z.z*)= sqrt(<z, z>)
 
Thank HallsofIvy!
the answer was very usefull. but;
just see the exact equality:

<a|b>=<b|a>*
the * sign is out of the dot product.
IT is the thing that I can't understand.
Thamks in advance.
Somy
 
somy said:
<a|b>=<b|a>*
the * sign is out of the dot product.
IT is the thing that I can't understand.

The inner product is defined the way it is because it is an algebraic abstraction of overlap integrals of wavefunctions.

Look at the inner product in terms of functions:

\newcommand{\mean}[1]{{&lt;\!\!{#1}\!\!&gt;}}\newcommand{\braket}[2]{{&lt;\!\!{#1|#2}\!\!&gt;}}\newcommand{\braketop}[3]{{&lt;\!\!{#1|\hat{#2}|#3}\!\!&gt;}}\braket{\phi}{\psi} \equiv \int \phi^*(x) \psi(x)\,dx

Take the complex conjugate of both sides, and it should be clear why <φ|ψ>*=<&psi;|&phi;>
 
Last edited:
Thanks Tom;
YOU did it!
 
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