I Dirac Notation: Bra & Ket Conjugation Rules

Click For Summary
In Dirac notation, bras and kets can be hermitianly conjugated, allowing for the manipulation of complex numbers. The equality <w|c> = <b|c> - <d|c> can be conjugated to yield <c|w> = <c|b> - <c|d>, maintaining the validity of the operation. The product <w|c><c|w> results in a real number, specifically |<c|w>|^2, confirming that the operation behaves consistently under conjugation. This leads to the conclusion that <w|c><c|w> being real does not contradict the properties of the operator P. Understanding these conjugation rules is essential for proper application in quantum mechanics.
Somali_Physicist
Messages
117
Reaction score
13
hey guys just a quick question , within the Dirac notation I we have bras and kets.Is it allowable to simply hermitianly conjugate everything , e.g:

<w|c> = <b|c> - <d|c>
Can we then:
<c|w> = <c|b> -<c|d>

Or is there some subtly hidden rule.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try expanding (<w|c> = <b|c> - <d|c>)*
 
Somali_Physicist said:
hey guys just a quick question , within the Dirac notation I we have bras and kets.Is it allowable to simply hermitianly conjugate everything , e.g:

<w|c> = <b|c> - <d|c>
Can we then:
<c|w> = <c|b> -<c|d>

Or is there some subtly hidden rule.

The quantity ##\langle w | c \rangle## is just a complex number, and it has the property that ##(\langle w | c \rangle^* = \langle c | w \rangle ##. So it's perfectly fine to apply the ##^*## operation to both sides of an equality.
 
stevendaryl said:
The quantity ##\langle w | c \rangle## is just a complex number, and it has the property that ##(\langle w | c \rangle^* = \langle c | w \rangle ##. So it's perfectly fine to apply the ##^*## operation to both sides of an equality.
Okay well that leads to my real conundrum:

<w|c><c|w> = α = P
conjugation of both sides
(<w|c><c|w>)* = α* = P*
<c|w><w|c> =α*
<c|w><w|c><w|c><c|w> = α2
=(<w|c><c|w>)2 = <w|c><c|w><w|c><c|w>

but does not this imply

<c|w><w|c> = <w|c><c|w> which means <w|c><c|w> real?

i don't understand why that would be the case as the operator P should act differently when conjugated.
 
Last edited:
yes the number alpha is real
what is the définition of your operator P?
 
Somali_Physicist said:
Okay well that leads to my real conundrum:

but does not this imply

<c|w><w|c> = <w|c><c|w> which means <w|c><c|w> real?

Yes, <c|w><w|c> = |<c|w>|^2 is a real number.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K