What is the difference between a vector and a vector space?

MNskating
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
What is the difference between a vector and a vector space? I get that a vector is an object with both magnitude and direction, but am confused by the term "vector space". Does a vector space simply refer to a collection of vectors? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I suppose you can say that a vector space is a collection of "vectors", but the issue you seems to be having is that you are using only an intuitive view of a vector. A vector space is a more abstract concept and it is not restricted to "arrows in 3d space", you should look for a book of linear algebra to learn about the subject.
 
MNskating said:
What is the difference between a vector and a vector space?

I think of it as similar to the difference between a (real) number and the number line; or the difference between a complex number and the complex (Argand) plane.

As andresB noted, the 3-d spatial vectors that we learn about in intro physics classes are only one example of the more abstract mathematical concept of "vector". The set of all 3-d spatial vectors is a vector space, but it's not the only vector space.

Knowing that some set of mathematical objects and their associated operations form a vector space is useful, because you can use your experience with other vector spaces to guide you in working with them. When I was first learning quantum mechanics as an undergraduate, it was a big "aha!" moment for me when I saw that integrals like $$\int{\psi_1^*(x)\psi_2(x)dx}$$ were like vector dot products ##\vec v_1 \cdot \vec v_2##, etc.
 
Basic rules of a vector space (collection of vectors). Sum of two vectors is a vector in the space. Scalar multiple of a vector is a vector in the space.
 
MNskating said:
What is the difference between a vector and a vector space? I get that a vector is an object with both magnitude and direction, but am confused by the term "vector space". Does a vector space simply refer to a collection of vectors?

You need to study linear algebra. But since this is the quantum physics sub-forum doing it using the bra-ket notation will prepare you for its use in QM:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/751.mf1i.fall02/751LinearAlgebra.pdf

Thanks
Bill
 
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...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top