Adjoint Operation in Shankar's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics

In summary: I've seen that convention where complex scalars are shown on the right of bras.He states that a is a scalar. And I presume complex.
  • #1
Getterdog
83
6
TL;DR Summary
Confused
In R Shankar text on “principles of quantum mechanics’ discussing the adjoint operation, 1.3.8 shows that a|V> => <V|a*. Then 1.3.9 then states

that <aV| = <V|a*. Is this a typo error?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Getterdog said:
Summary:: Confused

In R Shankar text on “principles of quantum mechanics’ discussing the adjoint operation, 1.3.8 shows that a|V> => <V|a*. Then 1.3.9 then states

that <aV| = <V|a*. Is this a typo error?
It might help if you were more explicit about what all these symbols mean. For example, what does this mean?
$$a|V \rangle \ \Rightarrow \ \langle V|a^*$$
 
  • #3
PeroK said:
It might help if you were more explicit about what all these symbols mean. For example, what does this mean?
$$a|V \rangle \ \Rightarrow \ \langle V|a^*$$
Well.a is a complex number, <v| is a row vector, |V> is a column vector.
 
  • #4
Getterdog said:
Well.a is a complex number, <v| is a row vector, |V> is a column vector.
Ah! When you said "adjoint operation" I thought ##V## was an operator. That makes sense.

I would say that ##\langle V|## is a bra and ##|V \rangle## is a ket.

It's not a typo. What are ##\langle aV|## and ##\langle V| a^*##? Before you can see they are equal you first have to understand fully what they are. Can you describe each precisely?
 
  • Like
Likes Getterdog
  • #5
Getterdog said:
Well.a is a complex number, <v| is a row vector, |V> is a column vector.
And, I guess ##\Rightarrow## means "is associated with" via the mapping of kets to bra?

I would tend to write ##\leftrightarrow##, as it's a two-way association. But, if that's Shankar's notation, then stick with it.
 
  • #6
Getterdog said:
a is a complex number

A complex number or an operator? I think it's the latter (since otherwise ##a^*## would not need to multiply the bra ##\langle V \vert## from the right).
 
  • #7
PeterDonis said:
A complex number or an operator? I think it's the latter (since otherwise ##a^*## would not need to multiply the bra ##\langle V \vert## from the right).

I think I've seen that convention where complex scalars are shown on the right of bras.
 
  • #8
He states that a is a scalar. And I presume complex.
 
  • #9
PeroK said:
Ah! When you said "adjoint operation" I thought ##V## was an operator. That makes sense.

I would say that ##\langle V|## is a bra and ##|V \rangle## is a ket.

It's not a typo. What are ##\langle aV|## and ##\langle V| a^*##? Before you can see they are equal you first have to understand fully what they are. Can you describe each precisely?
Inside the bra ,<aV |would be a complex scalar times V which is presumed to be the complex conjugate in row form of some other vector v in column form. Since complex multiplication is communitive, I assume <Va| is the same. I’m not clear why taking the a outside of the bra,creates the scalars complex conjugate
 
  • #10
Getterdog said:
Inside the bra ,<aV |would be a complex scalar times V which is presumed to be the complex conjugate in row form of some other vector v in column form. Since complex multiplication is communitive, I assume <Va| is the same. I’m not clear why taking the a outside of the bra,creates the scalars complex conjugate
##\langle aV |## is the bra associated with the ket ##|aV \rangle##

If you don't immediately see that, just let ##U = aV##.

And, what can you now say about ##|aV \rangle##?
 
  • #11
PeroK said:
##\langle aV |## is the bra associated with the ket ##|aV \rangle##

If you don't immediately see that, just let ##U = aV##.

And, what can you now say about ##|aV \rangle##?
Ok, doesn’t that mean that in <aV|, both a and V are complex conjugates of |aV> ?
 
  • #12
Getterdog said:
Ok, doesn’t that mean that in <aV|, both a and V are complex conjugates of |aV> ?
Complex conjugate applies only to complex numbers. You don't have the complex conjugate of a ket.

Let me explain this then.

First, as I already said: ##\langle aV |## is the bra associated with the ket ##|aV \rangle##

And, we know that ##|aV \rangle = a |V \rangle##.

Then, we know from your original post that the bra associated with ##a |V \rangle## is ##\langle V|a^*##.

Putting this all together we have: ##\langle aV | = \langle V|a^*##

Note that bras and kets are intended to form the inner product, which in QM is linear in the second argument. In other words we have:
$$\langle V|aU \rangle = a \langle V|U \rangle \ \text{and} \ \langle aV|U \rangle = a^* \langle V|U \rangle$$
And that's another reason that when you take a complex scalar outside of a bra you get its complex conjugate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis
  • #13
Getterdog said:
Ok, doesn’t that mean that in <aV|, both a and V are complex conjugates of |aV> ?
Yep got the obvious,, now. I guess my confusion what why it’s not marked inside the bra as it is outside. Presumably to avoid confusion when doing further inner product calculation. I seems obvious now. I feel stupid! Thanks
 
  • #14
PeroK said:
Complex conjugate applies only to complex numbers. You don't have the complex conjugate of a ket.

Let me explain this then.

First, as I already said: ##\langle aV |## is the bra associated with the ket ##|aV \rangle##

And, we know that ##|aV \rangle = a |V \rangle##.

Then, we know from your original post that the bra associated with ##a |V \rangle## is ##\langle V|a^*##.

Putting this all together we have: ##\langle aV | = \langle V|a^*##

Note that bras and kets are intended to form the inner product, which in QM is linear in the second argument. In other words we have:
$$\langle V|aU \rangle = a \langle V|U \rangle \ \text{and} \ \langle aV|U \rangle = a^* \langle V|U \rangle$$
And that's another reason that when you take a complex scalar outside of a bra you get its complex conjugate.
Yep,got it now. Thanks.your last equation clears it up.
 

What is the adjoint operation in Shankar's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics"?

The adjoint operation, also known as the Hermitian conjugate, is a mathematical operation that is used to find the transpose and complex conjugate of a matrix or operator in quantum mechanics. It is denoted by a dagger symbol (†) and is used to find the adjoint of a given operator, which is necessary for solving quantum mechanical problems.

What is the significance of the adjoint operation in quantum mechanics?

The adjoint operation is crucial in quantum mechanics as it allows us to find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of an operator, which are essential for solving quantum mechanical problems. It also helps in finding the expectation values of physical observables, such as energy and momentum, and in determining whether an operator is Hermitian or not.

How is the adjoint operation related to the Schrödinger equation?

The adjoint operation plays a significant role in the Schrödinger equation as it allows us to find the adjoint of the Hamiltonian operator, which is used to solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. It also helps in finding the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian, which are necessary for solving the time-independent Schrödinger equation.

Can the adjoint operation be applied to non-Hermitian operators?

No, the adjoint operation can only be applied to Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics. This is because Hermitian operators have real eigenvalues, which are essential for finding the expectation values of physical observables. Non-Hermitian operators do not have real eigenvalues, and thus the adjoint operation cannot be applied to them.

Are there any other applications of the adjoint operation in quantum mechanics?

Yes, the adjoint operation has various other applications in quantum mechanics, such as in the proof of the uncertainty principle, in the derivation of the commutation relations between operators, and in the proof of the time-energy uncertainty relation. It is also used in the proof of the completeness of the set of eigenfunctions of a Hermitian operator.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
674
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top