MHB Conjugate Bra Ket Properties for Proving the Schwarz Inequality

ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
Just checking (while trying to prove the Schwarz inequality for $<f|H|g>$, I know $ <f|g>=<g|f>^* $ please confirm/correct :

If $ \psi=f+\lambda g, \:then\: \psi^*=f^*+\lambda^* g^* $

Is $ <f^*|g>=<g^*|f>^* $ and $ <f^*|H|g>=<g^*|H|f>^* $ (H hermitian)?

Is $ <f^*|H|g><g^*|H|f> = - <g^*|H|f><f^*|H|g> $

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ognik said:
Just checking (while trying to prove the Schwarz inequality for $<f|H|g>$,

Use the $\LaTeX$ codes
Code:
\langle and \rangle
instead of < and > to get better-looking symbols.

I know $ <f|g>=<g|f>^* $ please confirm/correct :

If $ \psi=f+\lambda g, \:\text{then}\: \psi^*=f^*+\lambda^* g^* $

Is $ <f^*|g>=<g^*|f>^* $ and $ <f^*|H|g>=<g^*|H|f>^* $ (H hermitian)?

It's confusing to put the conjugate symbol inside a bra or ket. That's not usually how we do this notation. Remember these rules:
1. The Hermitian conjugate of a bra is the corresponding ket, and vice versa. That is, $|f\rangle^{\dagger}=\langle f|$, and $\langle f|^{\dagger}=|f\rangle$.
2. The Hermitian conjugate of a complex number is its complex conjugate.
3. The Hermitian conjugate of a Hermitian conjugate is the original thing back at you.
4. For a general operator $A$, you have $\langle f|A|g\rangle^*=\langle g|A^{\dagger}|f\rangle$.

So, I would say you have $\langle f|g\rangle^*=\langle g|f\rangle$, and $\langle f|H|g\rangle^*=\langle g|H|f\rangle$, since $H$ is Hermitian.

Is $ <f^*|H|g><g^*|H|f> = - <g^*|H|f><f^*|H|g> $

Thanks

I would say $\langle f|H|g\rangle \, \langle g|H|f\rangle=\langle f|H|g\rangle \langle f|H|g\rangle^*=|\langle f|H|g\rangle|^2$.
 
It's confusing to put the conjugate symbol inside a bra or ket.
Which was what I needed to know to figure out the (too embarrassing to tell) mistake I was making.

The proof fell into place almost too easily after that, thanks ackbach
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
702
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
750
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K