Show that the dot product is linear: Bra-ket notation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the linearity of the dot product in two-dimensional space using bra-ket notation. Participants emphasize the importance of demonstrating the proof step-by-step rather than simply distributing the inner product. They clarify that the conjugate transpose is essential when dealing with complex numbers, as it relates to projections and ensures the result is real. An example is provided to illustrate how the inner product of a vector with itself yields the magnitude squared, reinforcing the necessity of the conjugate. Overall, the conversation highlights the mathematical rigor required in proving properties of the dot product.
lausco
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that the dot product in two-dimensional space is linear:
<u|(|v> + |w>) = <u|v> + <u|w>

The Attempt at a Solution


I feel like I'm missing some grasp of the concept here ...
I would think to just distribute the <u| and be done in that one step,
but I'm being asked to prove this.
Is there a reason the <u| can't simply be distributed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lausco said:

Homework Statement


Show that the dot product in two-dimensional space is linear:
<u|(|v> + |w>) = <u|v> + <u|w>

The Attempt at a Solution


I feel like I'm missing some grasp of the concept here ...
I would think to just distribute the <u| and be done in that one step,
but I'm being asked to prove this.
Is there a reason the <u| can't simply be distributed?

I think you're being asked to demonstrate this longhand, in order to prove it.

In other words, recall (for two dimensional space),

| v \rangle = <br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> v_1 \\<br /> v_2 <br /> \end{pmatrix}, \ \<br /> | w \rangle = <br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> w_1 \\<br /> w_2 <br /> \end{pmatrix}, \ \<br /> \langle u | = (u_1^*, u_2^*)
and then work things out longhand, using more conventional methods, to eventually show that it does distribute.
 
I know that <u|v> = the length of |u> times the projection of |v> along |u> . . . Are the conjugates related the the projection?
 
lausco said:
I know that <u|v> = the length of |u> times the projection of |v> along |u> . . . Are the conjugates related the the projection?

I think so, yes. I'm not the best person to be explaining math, so don't rely on me for a graceful explanation of this. :redface: But yes, I think the conjugates ultimately comes down to some sort of generalization of projections.

| A \rangle and \langle A | represent conjugate transposes of one another. Of course if you deal only with real numbers, you don't need to worry about the conjugate. :smile: But in general, when dealing the complex numbers, the conjugate is necessary.

Perhaps it's easiest to demonstrate the motivation of this with a special case of taking the inner product of a vector with itself. In other words, let's examine \langle A | A \rangle.

Let's further simplify this to 1 dimension for now. Suppose we have a simple, one-dimensional vector | A \rangle = \left( 3 + i4 \right). Suppose our goal is to find the magnitude squared of this complex, one dimensional vector. In complete agreement with the length of A times the projection of A onto itself, we can find the length squared of A by finding \langle A | A \rangle. In this example, the answer is (3 - i4)(3 + i4) = 25. Notice I found |A|2 by multiplying the complex conjugate of A by A. In other words, |A|2 = A*A for this one dimensional case. Notice that since we were trying to find the magnitude squared of a vector, the answer will always be real, even if A is complex. We couldn't do that without the complex conjugate.

We can move on to larger dimensional spaces by saying that in general, \langle A | is the conjugate transpose of | A \rangle.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top