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.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Back
Top