I Understanding Bra Ket Correspondence and Proving (1.8) Transformation

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kashmir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bra ket
Kashmir
Messages
466
Reaction score
74
IMG_20211002_214821.JPG


I can't follow how the above argument leads to (1.8).

I am able to prove it only if I can show ##\langle a \mid c\rangle\langle b+c\rangle=(\langle a|+\langle b|) c\rangle## but I don't understand why the bra transformations <P| ,<Q| obey
(<P|+ <Q|)x = <P|x + <Q|x .
Is it an assumption?

Please help me
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Kashmir said:
View attachment 290057

I can't follow how the above argument leads to (1.8).

I am able to prove it only if I can show ##\langle a \mid c\rangle+\langle b+c\rangle=(\langle a|+\langle b|) c\rangle## but I don't understand why the bra transformations <P| ,<Q| obey
(<P|+ <Q|)x = <P|x + <Q|x .
Is it an assumption?

Please help me
It's not an assumption. In order to make progress with QM - and especially Dirac notation - you are going to have to learn some formal linear algebra and, in particularm how to use defined properties to construct proofs.

(1.8) follows directly from the conjugate linearity of the inner product.
 
PeroK said:
It's not an assumption. In order to make progress with QM - and especially Dirac notation - you are going to have to learn some formal linear algebra and, in particularm how to use defined properties to construct proofs.

(1.8) follows directly from the conjugate linearity of the inner product.
Perhaps you mean this:

##(a+b, c)=(|a+b\rangle,|c\rangle)=\langle a+b \mid c\rangle -(1)##Also
##(a+b, c)=(a, c)+(b, c)=\langle a \mid c\rangle+\langle b \mid c\rangle-(2)##

From equations 1,2 we have

##\langle a+b \mid c\rangle=\langle a \mid c\rangle+\langle b \mid c\rangle## and not ##\langle a+b \mid c\rangle=(\langle a|+\langle b|) c\rangle## which is my doubt.
 
Kashmir said:
Perhaps you mean this:

##(a+b, c)=(|a+b\rangle,|c\rangle)=\langle a+b \mid c\rangle -(1)##Also
##(a+b, c)=(a, c)+(b, c)=\langle a \mid c\rangle+\langle b \mid c\rangle-(2)##

From equations 1,2 we have

##\langle a+b \mid c\rangle=\langle a \mid c\rangle+\langle b \mid c\rangle## and not ##\langle a+b \mid c\rangle=(\langle a|+\langle b|) c\rangle## which is my doubt.
These constructions are invalid: you can't mix orthodox linear algebra notation with bras and kets. It's one or the other. Note how careful the author of the section you posted was to keep the terminology consistent.

In any case, I thought the question was how to prove that:$$\langle u|\alpha^* \ \leftrightarrow \ \alpha |u\rangle$$What that means is: if ##\langle u|## is the bra corresponding to the ket ##|u \rangle##, then the bra ##\langle u|\alpha^*##corresponds to the ket ##\alpha |u\rangle##.

Note that ##\alpha## is a scalar - you also seem to be confused by the roles of scalars and kets. You may need a course in linear algebra before you can proceed any further with QM.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
This is still a great mystery, Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance" But science and mathematics are full of concepts which at first cause great bafflement but in due course are just accepted. In the case of Quantum Mechanics this gave rise to the saying "Shut up and calculate". In other words, don't try to "understand it" just accept that the mathematics works. The square root of minus one is another example - it does not exist and yet electrical engineers use it to do...
Back
Top