What Are Shankar's Inner Product Axioms in Quantum Mechanics?

Identity
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
I was reading "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" - Shankar, and I'm having trouble understanding the inner product. Can someone help me or link me to a site that explains it?

The axioms of the inner product are

1. \langle V|W\rangle = \langle W|V\rangle^*

2. \langle V|V\rangle \geq 0\ \ \ \ \ 0 \ \ iff\ \ |V\rangle = |0\rangle

3. \langle V|(a|W\rangle +b|Z\rangle ) \equiv \langle V|aW+bZ\rangle = a\langle V|W \rangle +b\langle V|Z \rangle

Given that |V\rangle and |W \rangle can be expressed in terms of their basis vectors,

|V \rangle = \sum_i v_i |i \rangle

|W \rangle = \sum_j w_j|j \rangle

Shankar says "we follow the axioms obeyed by the inner product to obtain"

\langle V|W \rangle = \sum_i \sum_j v_i^*w_j\langle i|j \rangle

I don't understand how this comes about?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Identity said:
I was reading "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" - Shankar, and I'm having trouble understanding the inner product. Can someone help me or link me to a site that explains it?

The axioms of the inner product are

1. \langle V|W\rangle = \langle W|V\rangle^*

2. \langle V|V\rangle \geq 0\ \ \ \ \ 0 \ \ iff\ \ |V\rangle = |0\rangle

3. \langle V|(a|W\rangle +b|Z\rangle ) \equiv \langle V|aW+bZ\rangle = a\langle V|W \rangle +b\langle V|Z \rangle

Given that |V\rangle and |W \rangle can be expressed in terms of their basis vectors,

|V \rangle = \sum_i v_i |i \rangle

|W \rangle = \sum_j w_j|j \rangle

Shankar says "we follow the axioms obeyed by the inner product to obtain"

\langle V|W \rangle = \sum_i \sum_j v_i^*w_j\langle i|j \rangle

I don't understand how this comes about?

thanks

What is your mathematical background? In most basic abstract algebra courses and even some linear algebra courses you will go into inner products and inner product spaces.
 
Oh I just finished high school and I'm trying to occupying myself in the holidays

(actually nevermind I was able to get it with some help from a friend)
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...

Similar threads

Back
Top