Skip to main content

Bra Ket Notation

Just a few notes here about shiny things that caught my eye regarding bra and ket notation in the quantum mechanics II lecture last night.

Inner Products
Inner products are the Hilbert space, quantum mechanical, state vector equivalent of the dot product for more standard vectors like position or velocity.  The unit basis ket , at least in our class, is written as

where j is the index of the component.  Associating back to Cartesian coordiantes, 1 would denote x, 2 would denote y, and 3 would denote z.  The ket vector is the same symbol in a ket and when the two are applied to each other we get the inner product

.

In other words, the inner product only produces contributions from like basis vectors, just like the dot product.

So here's the cool bit, the following all accomplish about the same thing, they find a number proportional to the magnitude of the component of one vector, lying along another vector whether those  vectors are what we most typically call vectors, or what we call bras and kets, or what we call wavefunctions:




The Projection Operator
Applying the following notation, (the projection operator), had continued to confuse me until last week.


To pull out the portion of a bra vector that points along the basis vector u sub j, the above can be applied as follows:


Applying the projection operator always seemed a bit daunting to me until I saw the entire operation written in several steps utilizing the associative property and the fact that bras and kets commute with scalars as

.

Cool note:
The projection operator is an example of an outer product.  An outer product of two vectors produces a square matrix.  The trace of the matrix is equal to the dot, (or inner), product of the two vectors.

Picture of the Day:
From 1/21/13

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cool Math Tricks: Deriving the Divergence, (Del or Nabla) into New (Cylindrical) Coordinate Systems

Now available as a Kindle ebook for 99 cents ! Get a spiffy ebook, and fund more physics The following is a pretty lengthy procedure, but converting the divergence, (nabla, del) operator between coordinate systems comes up pretty often. While there are tables for converting between common coordinate systems , there seem to be fewer explanations of the procedure for deriving the conversion, so here goes! What do we actually want? To convert the Cartesian nabla to the nabla for another coordinate system, say… cylindrical coordinates. What we’ll need: 1. The Cartesian Nabla: 2. A set of equations relating the Cartesian coordinates to cylindrical coordinates: 3. A set of equations relating the Cartesian basis vectors to the basis vectors of the new coordinate system: How to do it: Use the chain rule for differentiation to convert the derivatives with respect to the Cartesian variables to derivatives with respect to the cylindrical variables. The chain ...

The Alcubierre Warp Drive Tophat Function and Open Science with Sage

I transferred yesterday's Mathematica file with the Alcubierre warp drive[2] line element and space curvature calculations to the  +Sage Mathematical Software System  today, (the files been  added to the public repository [3]).  If you haven't used Sage before, it's a Python based software package that's similar in functionality to Mathematica.  Oh, and it' free.  I also worked a little more on understanding the theory, but frankly, I made far more progress with the software than the theory.  What follows will be a little more of the Alcubierre theory, plus, a cool Sage interactive demo of one of the Alcubierre functions[1], as well as a bit about my first experience with using Sage. Theory The theory is fun, but it's moving slowly.  Here's the chalk board from this morning's discussion Alcubierre setup the derivation using something called the 3+1 formalism which means we consider space to be flat, (in this case), slices that are labelled ...

The Valentine's Day Magnetic Monopole

There's an assymetry to the form of the two Maxwell's equations shown in picture 1.  While the divergence of the electric field is proportional to the electric charge density at a given point, the divergence of the magnetic field is equal to zero.  This is typically explained in the following way.  While we know that electrons, the fundamental electric charge carriers exist, evidence seems to indicate that magnetic monopoles, the particles that would carry magnetic 'charge', either don't exist, or, the energies required to create them are so high that they are exceedingly rare.  That doesn't stop us from looking for them though! Keeping with the theme of Fairbank[1] and his academic progeny over the semester break, today's post is about the discovery of a magnetic monopole candidate event by one of the Fairbank's graduate students, Blas Cabrera[2].  Cabrera was utilizing a loop type of magnetic monopole detector.  Its operation is in...