FOlks,

I am having difficulty understanding from image 144.jpg eqn 1.3.25, how Sakurai identified this as a square matrix by column matrix.

Can anyone shed light on this? THanks

Printable View

- March 19th 2011, 05:11 AMbugatti79QM - Base Kets and Matrix Representations Part 1
FOlks,

I am having difficulty understanding from image 144.jpg eqn 1.3.25, how Sakurai identified this as a square matrix by column matrix.

Can anyone shed light on this? THanks - March 19th 2011, 07:34 AMAckbeet
Well, I wouldn't use the language "identified this as a square matrix by column matrix." Sakurai appears to have identified Eq. 1.3.25 as an

**application**of the rule for**multiplication**of a column vector by a square matrix. The final result, as we can see, is a bracket (a scalar). To go from the first line of 1.3.25 to the second, all Sakurai did was insert the identity in the form of

That's certainly a square matrix.

I guess I'm not entirely sure what your question is. Perhaps my comments could help to clarify your question? Are you asking why Sakurai can write down Eq. 1.3.25? Or are you asking how he recognized 1.3.25 as, partly, the multiplication of a square matrix with a column vector? Or something else? - March 19th 2011, 07:45 AMbugatti79
- March 19th 2011, 07:50 AMAckbeet
Take a look at this thread. That might help explain a few things. Let me know if you have other questions.

- March 19th 2011, 08:46 AMbugatti79
THis an interesting thread particularly

You say that x and y are column vectors, ie the kets alpha and gamma are column vectors in eqn 1.3.26.

But I still dont see how these arrive to be column matrices...so I guess will have to take it as given for the moment :-)

Pardon my ignorance on this! - March 19th 2011, 04:15 PMAckbeet
Typically, kets are defined as column vectors. (Incidentally, in your last post, you use the phrases "column vector" and "column matrix". Are you meaning the same thing by those two terms?) Bras are something for which you have to deduce their structure such that the inner product makes sense - they are vectors in the dual space.

- March 20th 2011, 08:51 AMbugatti79
Ok, that is good information. I also see that an inner product is a complex number therefore in matrix representation this has to be in the form

(1*N)(N*N)(N*1) =(1*1) to get a number and this equivalent to

Additionally

(1*N)(N*1)=(1*1) equivalent to

(N*1)(1*N)=(N*N) equivalent to

Hope I have them right :-) - March 21st 2011, 02:03 AMAckbeet
- March 21st 2011, 03:31 PMbugatti79
- March 21st 2011, 05:14 PMAckbeet
You're welcome! Keep the QM coming - it's loads of fun for me. *grin*

- March 22nd 2011, 12:09 AMbugatti79