Dirac Notation: Why is order reversed in ket expasion?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation used in quantum mechanics, specifically Dirac notation, and the reasoning behind the order of terms in the expansion of a ket vector. Participants explore the implications of writing the inner product and the outer product in different orders, focusing on the conventions used in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant cites Shankar's text to illustrate the expansion of a ket and questions why the order of the components is reversed when expressing the inner product.
  • Another participant notes that operationally, the non-commutativity of operators necessitates caution, suggesting that this may complicate the notation.
  • A different participant asks why the expansion cannot be written with the inner product first, questioning the necessity of the conventional order.
  • One participant argues that both the coefficients and the inner product are numbers, implying that their order should not matter, but acknowledges that the convention is to keep the operators on the outside for clarity.
  • A later reply expresses agreement with the previous point, indicating that the convention is understood but still raises questions about its necessity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and implications of the order in which terms are written in Dirac notation. There is no consensus on whether the order is merely a convention or if it has deeper operational significance.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the nature of operators and their commutation properties are not fully explored, which may influence the discussion. The implications of the notation in practical applications are also not resolved.

RoadDog
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
When expanding a ket as a sum of components and basis unit vectors, Why is the order of ket and corresponding vector component reversed when writing the vector component as an inner product under the summation?
Shankar Prin. of QM 2nd Ed (and others) introduce the inner product:

<i|V> = vi ...(Shankar 1.3.4)

They expand the ket |V> as:

|V> = Σ vi|i>

|V> = Σ |i><i|V> ...(Shankar 1.3.5)

Why do they reverse the order of the component vi and the ket |i> when they write the former as the inner product <i|V>? It should not matter right? The reversal of order is almost as if it is to stress the appearance of the outer product |i><i|.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Operationally one must be careful because the operators do not commute. This leads to complications better explained by those fluently conversant in Hilbert.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: kered rettop
Thank you for your reply. You are speaking of the outer product as the projection operator? Right. But I am asking, why must it be written as such. What is wrong with writing:

|V> = Σ <i|V> |i>

if <i|V> = vi?
 
Both ##v_i## and ##\bra i \ket v ## are numbers so their position does not really matter. It is a convention (a useful one) to leave the open operators on the outside.
 
Last edited:
OK thanks that is what I figured. Thanks
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K