Hello.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I have been working out of the beginning of Shankar lately, and I wanted to address some confusion I have had with regard to Dirac notation.

I know that physicists tend to love the notation, but to me, so far, it is confusing, inconsistent, and even occasionally contradictory. Here is a short list of some of what bothers me about it. I guess I am hoping that some of you can explain to me why some of these problems are not as bad as they seem, or even why they aren't actually problems.

1. Labels:

Kets are used to denote vectors, and a label is placed on the ket to name it. This is okay for me except when it comes to performing operations on vectors. For instance, let V be a vector space over C, and take |A> and |B> to be vectors in V. Also, let a and b be complex numbers. Then, Shankar uses the notation

a |A> + b |B> = |a A + b B>.

Therefore, a A + b B becomes a label for the new ket. This is okay with me except for cases like this: Let |1>, |2>, ..., |n> be a basis for V. Then, (3+2i) |1> - 4 |2> = |(3+2i) 1 - 4 2>.

I know that one shouldn't get hung up on notation, but that justkillsme.

2. Inner products:

This is basically the same thing as the first, but inner product labeling gets even worse. We denote the inner product of |V> with |W> by <V|W>. This seems to imply that the inner product of |LABEL 1> with |LABEL 2> is <LABEL 1|LABEL 2>. However, Shankar also writes things like

<V| (aW + bZ) which is decent except that it has the same labeling issues.

3. Dual space:

Thanks to the Riez Representation Theorem, every element of the dual space can be written as a bra. Because of this, I think writing things like <V| is very good notation. However, Shankar feels that ANYTHING acting on or acted on by a bra should go after the bra.

For instance, instead of 2 <V|, Shankar writes <V| 2 which is okay I guess if we know ahead of time that 2 is in the field and not the vector space. But what about this: let T be a linear transformation acting on bras. Then shankar writes <V| T instead of T <V| or T(<V|). Then he awful things like this:

<V|aT =<V|Ta when what he means is T(a<V|) = a T<V|

What about <V| T L where T and L are linear operators? Does it mean LT(<V|) or TL(<V|)?

Maybe I'm overreacting to all of this, but this really seems to be a big mess!

Anyway, thanks for reading! I would appreciate any discussion!

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Bra-ket notation

Loading...

Similar Threads - notation | Date |
---|---|

I Confused about Dirac Notation | Jan 13, 2018 |

I Double sided arrow notation in Dirac Field Lagrangian | Oct 30, 2017 |

B Teacher needs help: Bra–ket notation for parabolas? | Oct 22, 2017 |

I Confusion about Dirac Notation (interferometer) | Oct 15, 2017 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**