Visualising the Conjugate Transposition of a Vector

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the geometrical interpretation of conjugate transposition of vectors in Hilbert space, specifically focusing on the visualization of state vectors and their corresponding basis vectors. Participants explore the implications of inner products between vectors, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics, and seek conceptualizations and visual representations of these ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Harry introduces the concept of geometrical differences between state vectors and their corresponding basis vectors, questioning how these can be represented graphically.
  • Harry suggests that the inner product of two vectors represents the projection of one onto another and raises questions about the meaning of inner products for non-equal states.
  • Bill challenges Harry's interpretation of the inner product, stating that the inner product of vectors from different spaces would not equal one and provides a reference to the tensor product of vector spaces.
  • Harry clarifies that he meant the inner product of two vectors within the same vector space, acknowledging the importance of this distinction.
  • A participant references Liboff's "Introductory Quantum Mechanics" as a source that offers graphical representations relevant to the discussion.
  • Another participant explains the relationship between kets and bras in Hilbert space, introducing the concept of the topological dual space and its relevance to generalized eigenvectors in quantum theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the interpretation of the inner product between vectors from different spaces, with Bill and Harry presenting differing views. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the graphical representation of state vectors and their implications in quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions and implications of inner products in different contexts, as well as the graphical representation of concepts in Hilbert space. The discussion highlights the complexity of these topics without reaching definitive conclusions.

H Smith 94
Gold Member
Messages
55
Reaction score
1
Hi there!

As you might have already guessed, I'm referring primarily to the 'geometrical' difference (is there such geometry in Hilbert space?) between ##n##-dimensional state vectors
| \psi \rangle = \left( \begin{matrix} \psi_1 \\ \psi_2 \\ \vdots \\ \psi_n \end{matrix} \right)
and their corresponding basis vectors
\langle \psi | = \left( \begin{matrix} \psi_1^* & \psi_2^* & \cdots & \psi_n^* \end{matrix} \right).
What would these (particularly the latter) look like on a graph? (What kind of graph could one even represent these on?)

Additionally, if the inner product of two vector spaces represents the projection of one vector onto another, the inner product of these two vector spaces would equal 1, meaning they are parallel (which is true). But what does that mean for two non-equal states? For example,
\langle \phi | \psi \rangle
where ##|\phi\rangle \ne |\psi\rangle##. How does this inner product represent the probability amplitude of the wavefunction from two separate states? I've been imagining this as an ##n##-dimensional generalisation of the dot (scalar) product of two vectors thus far!

I'm looking mainly for conceptualisations/visualisations (personal interpretations invited) of how this process works but also corrections on where I'm misunderstanding the theory.

Thanks in advance,

Harry
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
H Smith 94 said:
Additionally, if the inner product of two vector spaces represents the projection of one vector onto another, the inner product of these two vector spaces would equal 1,

I don't know what you mean by the inner product of two different spaces. If you have two spaces you need to form their product space |a>|b> and the inner product will not in general be one in that product space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_product#Tensor_product_of_vector_spaces

In fact with the usual way of doing it the inner product will be zero ie you get a vector (a1, a2, ...an,b1, b2,...bm). A vector with all the bj zero will always have an inner product of zero with a vector that has the ai zero.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
bhobba said:
I don't know what you mean by the inner product of two different spaces. If you have two spaces you need to form their product space |a>|b> and the inner product will not in general be one in that product space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_product#Tensor_product_of_vector_spaces

Hi Bill, thanks for your response!

I apologise for the ambiguity - I didn't mean the inner product of two vector spaces; I meant the inner product of two vectors, |a\rangle and |b\rangle within the same vector space. I realize now that is an important distinction to make!
 
Liboff - Introductory Quantum Mechanics offers a graphical representation similar to what you're thinking when it discusses the Hilbert space.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: H Smith 94
ddd123 said:
Liboff - Introductory Quantum Mechanics offers a graphical representation similar to what you're thinking when it discusses the Hilbert space.

Thank you! Yes that is very helpful!
 
A "ket" represents a vector in Hilbert space, a "bra" a covector. If you take the topological dual space, you have the Hilbert space again (or more precisely the topological dual of the Hilbert space is equivalent to the Hilbert space again).

In quantum theory, however, you extend this notion of the dual space to an extended object, i.e., to distributions on the Hilbert space. The reason is that then you can deal with "generalized eigenvectors" for undbound self-adjoint operators that are defined only on a dense subspace of the Hilbert space, and you consider the dual space of this subspace. This is called the "rigged Hilbert-space formalism). You find a good physicists' introduction in

L. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, Addison Wesley.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K