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

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating the linearity of the dot product in two-dimensional space using bra-ket notation. The original poster seeks to understand why the expression + |w>) cannot simply be distributed to show that it equals + .

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to demonstrate the proof longhand rather than simply distributing the terms. There are questions about the role of conjugates in the context of projections and how they relate to the inner product.

Discussion Status

Some participants suggest that demonstrating the proof in detail is necessary to understand the underlying concepts. Others explore the relationship between conjugates and projections, indicating a productive exploration of the topic without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of working with complex numbers and the importance of conjugates in the inner product, which may imply constraints on the types of numbers being discussed.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K