Does Dirac notation apply to tensor product in tensor analysis?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Dirac notation to tensor products in tensor analysis, specifically examining the relationship between expressions involving operators and their action on vectors within the framework of Dirac notation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the expression $$\langle u|A|u\rangle\langle u|B|u\rangle$$ can be equated to $$\langle u|\langle u|A\otimes B|u\rangle |u\rangle$$ in Dirac notation.
  • Another participant argues that the initial expression does not seem correct and translates the Dirac notation into tensor notation, suggesting that $$\langle u |$$ corresponds to a linear functional and $$|u\rangle$$ to a vector, leading to a different interpretation of the operations involved.
  • A third participant points out the lack of definition for the tensor product $$\otimes$$ in this context and raises concerns about the nature of operator products and their interactions.
  • One participant clarifies that they are considering $$A$$ and $$B$$ as square matrices and $$\otimes$$ as the Kronecker product.
  • A later post reiterates the initial question and notes that if $$A$$ and $$B$$ act on the same space, the right-hand side may appear to inflate the state space unnecessarily, though it could still be technically correct.
  • Another participant critiques the use of Dirac notation as non-standard, suggesting an alternative representation that maintains symmetry between bra and ket vectors.
  • One participant acknowledges that while the notation may not be common in quantum mechanics texts, it makes sense within the context of modern tensor analysis where tensors are viewed as multilinear maps.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and interpretation of Dirac notation in relation to tensor products, with no consensus reached on the correctness of the initial claim or the appropriate use of notation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity regarding the definitions of operators and the nature of their products, as well as the context in which Dirac notation is applied, indicating potential limitations in the discussion.

jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
Just a question : do we have in Dirac notation $$\langle u|A|u\rangle\langle u|B|u\rangle=\langle u|\langle u|A\otimes B|u\rangle |u\rangle$$ ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That doesn't look right to me. If we translate the Dirac notation into tensor notation then ## \langle u | ## corresponds to ## u^1 ##, a linear functional and ## |u\rangle ## corresponds to ## \textbf{u} ##, a vector. Then ## \langle u | A | u \rangle ## is the same as ## u^1(A\textbf{u}) ##, the functional ## u^1 ## acting on the vector ## A\textbf{u} ##. Similarly, ## \langle u | B | u \rangle ## corresponds to ## u^1(B\textbf{u})##. Then I guess we would write ## u^1(A\textbf{u})u^1(B\textbf{u}) ## in Dirac notation as ## \langle u | \otimes \langle u | (A| u \rangle, B| u \rangle)##. The first ## \langle u | ## would act on the ## A | u \rangle ## and the second ## \langle u | ## would act on the ## B | u \rangle ##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DEvens
You have not defined what you mean by ##\otimes## in this case. As well, any kind of product of two operators is not necessarily going to be the same as the product of their results in brackets of this kind. How do the two operators act through each other? If they do.
 
I was thinkg of A and B be square matrices and $$\otimes$$ the kronecker product.
 
jk22 said:
Just a question : do we have in Dirac notation $$\langle u|A|u\rangle\langle u|B|u\rangle=\langle u|\langle u|A\otimes B|u\rangle |u\rangle$$ ?
So ##A## and ##B## act on the same space? Without context, the right-hand side looks like an unnecessary inflation of the state space but technically correct to me.
 
Geofleur said:
Then I guess we would write ## u^1(A\textbf{u})u^1(B\textbf{u}) ## in Dirac notation as ## \langle u | \otimes \langle u | (A| u \rangle, B| u \rangle)##. The first ## \langle u | ## would act on the ## A | u \rangle ## and the second ## \langle u | ## would act on the ## B | u \rangle ##.
Your use of Dirac notation seems quite non-standard to me. I haven't seen it in QM texts. Instead of your ##(\langle a| \otimes \langle b|) (|c\rangle, |d\rangle)## I would write ##(\langle a| \otimes \langle b|) (|c\rangle \otimes |d\rangle)## which has the usual symmetry between bra and ket vectors.
 
Ah, I see. In tensor analysis, particularly in the modern sort where tensors are viewed as multilinear maps, that kind of notation is common. But the bra-ket notation is not used in that context, at least not in the books I have been reading. I'm just happy that what I wrote down actually does make sense!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K