Question About Hilbert Space Convention

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conventions used for inner products in Hilbert spaces, particularly contrasting mathematical and physical perspectives. Participants explore the implications of these conventions in quantum mechanics and functional analysis, highlighting confusion and differing interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant cites Wikipedia, stating that the inner product is linear in the first argument and anti-linear in the second, questioning whether this is opposite to the convention used in quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant agrees with the initial claim and suggests that Wikipedia should be corrected to reflect the physics convention.
  • A different participant emphasizes that the mathematical convention is indeed opposite to the physics convention, asserting that the Wikipedia article is correct.
  • One participant expresses frustration with the mathematical convention learned in a course, indicating that it complicates intuitive understanding due to the Dirac convention used in physics.
  • Another participant mentions that this topic is well-known and argues that Wikipedia should adhere to the functional analysis convention, referencing historical texts.
  • A participant shares their experience of having to "unlearn" the mathematical convention when transitioning to physics, while also expressing a fondness for Dirac notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the conventions in mathematics and physics are opposite, with some agreeing that the conventions differ while others assert that the Wikipedia article correctly reflects the mathematical perspective. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the appropriateness of the conventions and their implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the confusion stemming from the differing conventions and the impact on intuitive understanding, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics and functional analysis. There is an acknowledgment of historical texts that may influence these conventions.

stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
2,955
According to Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space the inner product [itex]\langle x | y \rangle[/itex] is linear in the first argument and anti-linear in the second argument. That is:

[itex]\langle \lambda_1 x_1 + \lambda_2 x_2 | y \rangle = \lambda_1 \langle x_1 | y \rangle + \lambda_2 \langle x_2 | y \rangle[/itex]

[itex]\langle x | \lambda_1 y_1 + \lambda_2 y_2 \rangle = \lambda_1^* \langle x | y_1 \rangle + \lambda_2^* \langle x | y_2 \rangle[/itex]

That's just the opposite of what I always thought. I thought it was, for the usual Hilbert space of non-relativistic quantum mechanics:

[itex]\langle \psi | \phi \rangle = \int \psi^*(x) \phi(x) dx[/itex]

So it's the first argument, [itex]\psi[/itex] that is anti-linear.

Is the quantum mechanics convention the opposite of the usual Hilbert-space convention, or am I confused?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are right. Someone should correct the wikipedia.
 
You're right in mathematics it is the opposite convention. I should actually say that in physics it is the opposite convention. The wiki article is correct, the physicists should be corrected.
 
Yes, this made me crazy when I took the lecture "Topological Vector Spaces" by a mathematician. Their convention spoils all the intuitive things due to the Dirac convention. For the exercises I used to calculate everything in terms of the physicist's convention and then translated to by just flipping the order of the scalar products, when it came to special case of the Hilbert space ;-).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
This is a well-known topic. I think wiki articles should follow the functional analysis convention ever since the first known book by MH Stone in 1932, then Riesz & Nagy 1954, etc.
 
vanhees71 said:
Yes, this made me crazy when I took the lecture "Topological Vector Spaces" by a mathematician. Their convention spoils all the intuitive things due to the Dirac convention.

Aren't that the truth.

I learned about Hilbert spaces in a math class - then had to unlearn it in physics :-p:-p:-p:-p:-p:-p

I simply learn't to live with it.

But I have to say the Dirac notation is addictive - even when mucking around with math stuff I use it - especially for Rigged Hilbert Spaces.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K