Inner products and wavefunctions

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wavefunctions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of inner products in quantum mechanics, specifically the relationship between bras, kets, and wavefunctions. Participants explore the implications of the notation used in expressing inner products and the representation of kets and bras in infinite-dimensional spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the inner product of a bra and a ket results in a complex number, questioning why < x | ψ > yields a function instead.
  • One participant clarifies that the notation ##\braket{x | \psi} = \psi(x)## is an abuse of notation, indicating that ##\psi(x)## is a function mapping position ##x## to the number ##\braket{x | \psi}##.
  • There is a discussion about whether the inner product always yields a number, with some participants agreeing that it does when referring to a single bra and ket.
  • One participant attempts to visualize the kets | ψ > and | x > as infinite-dimensional vectors, proposing that | ψ > consists of values of ψ(x) at each position and | x > consists of an infinite collection of basis vectors.
  • Another participant cautions that such visualizations are heuristic and emphasizes the importance of using known mathematical properties rather than relying on representations.
  • There is a technical note that the Hilbert space representation of kets and bras does not include certain functions like the delta function and plane waves, which are not square integrable.
  • One participant points out the common confusion between a function ##\psi## and its evaluated value ##\psi(x)##, suggesting that physicists often conflate the two in discussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express both agreement and disagreement on various points, particularly regarding the interpretation of inner products and the nature of kets and bras. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the representation and implications of the mathematical notation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the definitions and representations of kets and bras, particularly in relation to the properties of the Hilbert space and the nature of certain functions used in quantum mechanics.

dyn
Messages
774
Reaction score
63
Hi
As far as i am aware taking the inner product of a bra and a ket results in a (complex) number or scalar. So why does < x | ψ > give ψ ( x ) , the wavefunction in position space ? Surely < x | ψ > should give a number not a function ?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The notation ##\braket{x | \psi} = \psi(x)## is actually a slight abuse of notation. What it says is: the function ##\psi(x)##, for a given ket ##\ket{\psi}##, is that function that maps each position ##x## to the number ##\braket{x | \psi}##, where ##\bra{x}## is the bra corresponding to the eigenstate of position in which the position is ##x##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark
Thanks for your reply. Is there a mistake in the Latex as it does not seem to be displaying properly ?
 
dyn said:
Is there a mistake in the Latex as it does not seem to be displaying properly ?
Do you mean in my post? It displays fine for me. You might have to reload the page, log out/back in, restart your browser, clear your cookies for physicsforums.com, or some combination of those.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark
Yes , it displays fine now. Thank you. So is it correct to say that an inner product of a bra and a ket always gives a number not a function ?
 
dyn said:
is it correct to say that an inner product of a bra and a ket always gives a number not a function ?
If you're talking about a single bra and a single ket, yes. The notation ##\braket{x | \psi} = \psi(x)## is actually using ##\bra{x}## to refer to an infinite collection of bras (one for each position ##x##), not just one.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark, atyy, dyn and 1 other person
Thank you. I'm trying to picture what the kets | ψ > and | x > look like. I know they are infinite-dimensional vectors. Is the ket | ψ > an infinite column vector consisting of the value of ψ( x ) at each of the infinite values of x ? Is the general ket | x > an infinite column vector consisting of the number 1 at each of the infinite values of x . ie an infinite collection of basis vectors ? When calculating < x | ψ > the bra is an infinite collection of zero's with the exception of a 1 at the exact position of the value of x in ψ ( x ) . have i got that right ?
Thanks
 
dyn said:
have i got that right ?
All of these things are highly heuristic (i.e., be careful how you use them) ways of describing kets and bras. Or more precisely, describing a (vaguely defined) representation of kets and bras.

Kets (and bras) are in general best left unvisualized, so to speak: when trying to prove anything about them in general, you should only use their known general mathematical properties, which will be valid regardless of any choice of representation. The only time you should choose a representation is when you have to--i.e., when there is no other way to do some particular calculation you want to do.

For the specific kets and bras you are talking about, i.e., those in the Hilbert space of a single particle (and its dual), there actually is no well-defined "infinite vector" representation. The only really well-defined representation you will see in most textbooks is the wave function representation, where ##\psi(x)## is a function (and operators on the Hilbert space are represented as operators on functions, mostly but not always differential operators). The technical issue with this representation is that, strictly speaking, the Hilbert space only consists of square integrable functions, and the eigenfunctions of the position and momentum operators, namely the "delta function" ##\delta(x)## and the plane wave ##e^{i k x}##, which are often used as two possible choices of basis for the Hilbert space, are not square integrable, so they aren't actually in the Hilbert space. There are ways of dealing with this, which is why it is only a technical issue and does not invalidate the wave function representation.

Many other Hilbert spaces, such as those for spin, are finite dimensional, so there is a valid vector representation (with operators being matrices), which is easier to use.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark, atyy and dyn
dyn said:
Hi
As far as i am aware taking the inner product of a bra and a ket results in a (complex) number or scalar. So why does < x | ψ > give ψ ( x ) , the wavefunction in position space ? Surely < x | ψ > should give a number not a function ?
Thanks
Technically, ##\psi(x)## is a number. ##\psi## is the function and ##x## is the variable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark and dyn
  • #10
This confusion arises, because physicists are sloppy in never making a difference between a function ##\psi## and the value ##\psi(x)## evaluated at the argument ##x##. So they say "##\psi(x)## is the wave function". What they mean is that ##\psi:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}## is a function ##x \mapsto \psi(x)##, i.e., it maps the real position coordinate to a complex number.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark, dyn, PeroK and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K