Bras, Kets, and Matrices

When quantum mechanics was originally developed (1925) the simple rules of matrix arithmetic was not yet
part of every technically educated persons basic knowledge. As a result, Heisenberg didnt realize that the (to
him) mysterious non-commutative multiplication he had discovered for his quantum mechanical variables was
nothing other than matrix multiplication. Likewise when Dirac developed his own distinctive approach to
quantum mechanics (see his book The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, first published in 1930) he
expressed the quantum mechanical equations in terms of his own customized notation which remains in
widespread use today rather than availing himself of the terminology of matrix algebra. To some extent this
was (and is) justified by the convenience of Diracs notation, but modern readers who are already acquainted
with the elementary arithmetic of matrices may find it easier to read Dirac (and the rest of the literature on
quantum mechanics) if they are aware of the correspondence between Diracs notation and the standard
language of matrices

The entities that Dirac called kets and bras are simply column vectors and row vectors, respectively, and the
linear operators of Dirac are simply square matrices. Of course, the elements of these vectors and matrices are
generally complex numbers. For convenience we will express ourselves in terms of vectors and matrices of
size 3, but they may be of any size, and in fact they are usually of infinite size (and can even be generalized to
continuous analogs). In summary, when Dirac refers to a bra, which he denoted as <A|, a ket, which he
denoted as |B>, and a measurement operator a, we can associate these with vectors and matrices as follows

The product of a bra and a ket, denoted by Dirac as <A||B> or, more commonly by omitting one of the middle
lines, as <A|B>, is simply the ordinary (complex) number given by multiplying a row vector and a column vector
in the usual way, i.e.,

Likewise the product of a bra times a linear operator corresponds to the product of a row vector times a square
matrix, which is again a row vector (i.e., a bra) as follows

and the product of a linear operator times a ket corresponds to the product of a square matrix times a column
vector, yielding another column vector (i.e., a ket) as follows

Obviously we can form an ordinary (complex) number by taking the compound product of a bra, a linear
operator, and a ket, which corresponds to forming the product of a row vector times a square matrix times a
column vector
We can also form the product of a ket times a bra, which gives a linear operator (i.e., a square matrix), as
shown below.

Dirac placed the bras and the kets into a one-to-one correspondence with each other by defining, for any given
ket |A>, the bra <A|, which he called the conjugate imaginary. In the language of matrices these two vectors
are related to each other by simply taking the transpose and then taking the complex conjugate of each
element (i.e., negating the sign of the imaginary component of each element). Thus the following two vectors
correspond to what Dirac called conjugate imaginaries of each other.

where the overbar signifies complex conjugation. Dirac chose not to call these two vectors the complex
conjugates of each other because they are entities of different types, and cannot be added together to give a
purely real entity. Nevertheless, like ordinary complex numbers, the product of a bra and its (imaginary)
conjugate ket is a purely real number, given by the dot product

The conjugation of linear operators is formally the same, i.e., we take the transpose of the matrix and then
replace each element with its complex conjugate. Thus the conjugate transpose of the operator a (defined
above) corresponds to the matrix

This is called the adjoint of a, which we denote by an overbar. Recall that the ordinary transpose operation
satisfies the identity

for any two matrices a and b. Its easy to verify that the conjugate transpose satisfies an identity of the same
form, i.e.,

The rule for forming the conjugate transpose of a product by taking the conjugate transpose of each factor and
reversing the order is quite general. It applies to any number of factors, and the factors need not be square,
and may even be ordinary numbers (with the understanding that the conjugate transpose of a complex number
is simply its conjugate). For example, given any four matrices a,b,g,d with suitable dimensions so that they can
be multiplied together in the indicated sequence, we have
This applies to the row and column vectors corresponding to Diracs bras and kets, as well as to scalar
(complex) numbers and square matrices. One minor shortcoming of Diracs notation is that it provides no
symbolic way of denoting the conjugate transpose of a bra or ket. Dirac reserved the overbar notation for what
he called the conjugate complex, whereas he referred to the conjugate transpose of bras and kets as conjugate
imaginaries. Thus the conjugate imaginary of <A| is simply written as |A>, but there is no symbolic way of

denoting the conjugate imaginary of <A|a, for example, other than explicitly as .

We might be tempted to define the real part of a matrix as the matrix consisting of just the real parts of the
individual elements, but Dirac pointed out that its more natural (and useful) to carry over from ordinary complex
numbers the property that an entity is real if it equals its conjugate. Our definition of conjugation for
matrices involves taking the transpose as well as conjugating the individual elements, so we need our
generalized definition of real to take this into account. To do this, we define a matrix to be real if it equals its
adjoint. Such matrices are also called self-adjoint. Clearly the real elements of a self-adjoint matrix must be
symmetrical, and the imaginary parts of its elements must be anti-symmetrical. On the other hand, the real
components of the elements of a purely imaginary matrix must be anti-symmetrical, and the imaginary
components of its elements must be symmetrical.

It follows that any matrix can be expressed uniquely as a sum of real and imaginary parts (in the sense of
those terms just described). Let amn and anm be symmetrically placed elements of an arbitrary matrix a, with the
complex components

Then we can express a as the sum a = r + h where r is a real matrix and h is an imaginary matrix, where the
components of r are

and the components of h are

By defining real and imaginary matrices in this way, we carry over the additiveproperties of complex
numbers, but not the multiplicative properties. In particular, for ordinary complex numbers, the product of two
reals is real, as is the product of two imaginaries, and the product of a real and an imaginary is imaginary. In
contrast, the product of two real (i.e., self-adjoint) matrices is not necessarily real. To show this, first note that
for any two matrices a and b we have

Hence if a and b are self-adjoint we have

Thus if a and b are self-adjoint then so is ab + ba. Similarly, for any two matrices a and bwe have

Hence if a and b are self-adjoint we have

This shows that if a and b are self-adjoint then so is i(ab - ba). Also, notice that multiplication of a matrix by i
has the effect of swapping the real and imaginary roles of the elementary components, changing the
symmetrical to anti-symmetrical and vice versa. It follows that the expression ab ba is purely imaginary (in
Diracs sense), because when multiplied by i the result is purely real (i.e., self-adjoint). Therefore, in general,
the product of two self-adjoint operators can be written in the form

where the first term on the right side is purely real, and the second term is purely imaginary (in Diracs
sense). Thus the product of two real matrices a and b is purely real if and only if the matrices commute, i.e., if
and only if ab = ba.

At this point we can begin to see how the ideas introduced so far are related to the physical theory of quantum
mechanics. Weve associated a certain observable variable (such as momentum or position) with a linear
operator a. Now suppose for the moment that we have diagonalized the operator, so the only non-zero
elements of the matrix are the eigenvalues, which we will denote by l1, l2, l3 along the diagonal. We require our
measurement operators to be Hermitian, which implies that their eigenvalues are all purely real. In addition, we
require that eigenvectors of the operator must span the space, which is to say, it must be possible to express
any state vector as a linear combination of the eigenvectors. (This requirement on observables may not be
logically necessary, but it is one of the postulates of quantum mechanics.)

Now, given a physical system whose state is represented by the ket |A>, and wish to measure (i.e., observe)
the value of the variable associated with the operator a. Perhaps the most natural way of forming a real scalar
value from the given information is the product

If we normalize the state vector so that its magnitude is 1, the above expression is simply a weighted average
of the eigenvalues. This motivates us to normalize all state vectors, i.e., to stipulate that for any state vector A
we have

Of course, since the components Aj are generally complex, there is still an arbitrary factor of unity in the state
vector. In other words, we can multiply a state vector by any complex number of unit length. i.e., any number of
the form eiq for an arbitrary real angle q, without affecting the results. This is called a phase factor.

From the standpoint of the physical theory, we must now decide how are we to interpret the real number
denoted by <A|a|A>. It might be tempting to regard it as the result of applying the measurement associated
with a to a system in state A, but Dirac asserted that this cant be correct by pointing out that the number
<A|ab|A> does not in general equal the number <A|a|A><A|b|A>. It isnt entirely clear why this inequality rules
out the stated interpretation. (For example, one could just as well argue that a and b cannot represent
observables because ab does not in general equal ba.) But regardless of the justification, Dirac chose to
postulate that the number <A|a|A> represents the average of the values given by measuring the
observable a on a system in the state A a large number of times. This is a remarkable postulate, since it
implicitly concedes that a single measurement of a certain observable on a system in a specific state need not
yield a unique result. In order to lend some plausibility to this postulate, Dirac notes that the bra-ket does
possess the simple additive property

Since the average of a set of numbers is a purely additive function, and since the bra-ket operation possesses
this additivity, Dirac argued that the stated postulate is justified. Again, he attributed the non-uniqueness of
individual measurements to the fact that the product of the bra-kets of two operators does not in general equal
the bra-ket of the product of those two operators.
There is, however, a special circumstance in which the bra-ket operation does possess the multiplicative
property, namely, in the case when both a and b are diagonal and A is an eigenvector of both of them. To see
this, consider the two diagonal matrices

The product of these two observables is

Note also that in this special case the multiplication of operators is commutative. Now, taking the state vector to
be the normalized eigenvector [0 1 0] for example, we get

Therefore, following Diracs reasoning, we are justified in treating the number <A|a|A> as the unique result of
measuring the observable a for a system in state A provided that A is an eigenvector of a, in which case the
result of the measurement is the corresponding eigenvalue of a.

From this it follows that quantum mechanics would entail no fundamental indeterminacy if it were possible to
simultaneously diagonalize all the observables. In that case, all observables would commute, and there would
be no Heisenberg uncertainty. However, we find that it is not possible to simultaneously diagonalize the
operators corresponding to every pair of observables. Specifically, if we characterize a physical system in
Hamiltonian terms by defining a set of configuration coordinates q1, q2, and the corresponding momenta p1,
p2, , then we find the following commutation relations

These expressions represent the commutators of the indicated variables, which are closely analogous to the
Poisson brackets of the canonical variables in classical physics. These commutators signify that each
configuration coordinate qj is incompatible with the corresponding momentum pj. It follows that we can
transform the system so as to diagonalize one or the other, but not both.

Shortly after Heisenberg created matrix mechanics, Schrdinger arrived at his theory of wave mechanics,
which he soon showed was mathematically equivalent to matrix mechanics, despite their superficially very
different appearances. One reason that the two formulations appear so different is that the equations of motion
are expressed in two completely different ways. In Heisenbergs approach, the state vector of the system is
fixed, and the operators representing the dynamical variables evolve over time. Thus the equations of motion
are expressed in terms of the linear operators representing the observables. In contrast, Schrdinger
represented the observables as fixed operators, and the state vector as varying over time. Thus his equations
of motion are expressed in terms of the state variable (or equivalently the wave function). This dichotomy
doesnt arise in classical physics, because there the dynamic variables define the state of the system. In
quantum mechanics, these two things (observables and states) are two distinct things, and the outcome of an
interaction depends only on the relationship between the two. Hence we can hold either one constant and allow
the other to vary in such a way as to give the necessary relationship between them.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the situation in pre-relativistic electrodynamics, when the interaction between
a magnet and a conductor in relative motion was given two formally very different accounts, depending on
which component was assumed to be moving. In the case of electrodynamics a great simplification was
achieved by adopting a new formalism (special relativity) in which the empirically meaningless distinction
between absolute motion and absolute rest was eliminated, and everything was expressed purely in terms of
relative motion. The explicit motivation for this was the desire to eliminate all asymmetries from the formalism
that were not inherent in the phenomena. In the case of quantum mechanics, we have asymmetric accounts
(namely the views of Heisenberg and Schrdinger) of the very same phenomena, so it seems natural to
suspect that there may be a single more symmetrical formulation underlying these two accounts.

The asymmetry in the existing formalisms seems to run deeper than simply the choice of whether to take the
states or the observables as the dynamic element subject to the laws of motion. This fundamentally entails an
asymmetry between the observer and the observed, whereas from a purely physical standpoint there is no
objective way of identifying one or the other of two interacting systems as the observer or the observed. A more
suitable formalism would treat the state of the system being observed on an equal footing with the state of the
system doing the observing. Thus, rather than having a matrix representing the observable and a vector
representing the state of the system being observed, we might imagine a formalism in which two systems are
each represented by a matrix, and the interaction of the two systems results in reciprocal changes in those
matrices. The change in each matrix would represent the absorption of some information about the (prior) state
of the other system. This would correspond, on the one hand, to the reception of an eigenvalue by the
observing system, and on the other hand, to the jump of the observed system to the corresponding
eigenvector. But both of these effects would apply in both directions, since the situation is physically
symmetrical.

In addition to its central role in quantum mechanics, the bra-ket operation also plays an important role in the
other great theory of 20th century physics, namely, general relativity. Suppose with each incremental extent of
space-time we associate a state vector x whose components (for any given coordinate basis) are the
differentials of the time and space coordinates, denoted by super-scripts with x0 representing time. The bra and
ket representatives of this state vector are

Now we define an observable g corresponding to the metric tensor

According to the formalism of quantum mechanics, a measurement of the observable g of this state would
yield, on average, the value

This is just the invariant line element, which is customarily written (using Einsteins summation convention) as

However, unlike the case of quantum mechanics, the elements of the vector x and operator g are purely real
(at least in the usual treatment of general relativity), so complex conjugation is simply the identity operation.
Also, based on the usual interpretation of quantum mechanics, we would expect a measurement of g to always
yield one of the eigenvalues of g, leaving the state x in the corresponding eigenstate. Applying this literally to
the diagonal Minkowski metric of flat spacetime (in geometric units so that c = 1), we would expect a
measurement of g on x to yield +1, -1, -1, or -1, with probabilities proportional to (dx0)2, (dx1)2, (dx2)2,
(dx3)2 respectively. It isnt obvious how to interpret this in the context of spacetime in general relativity, although
the fact that the average of many such measurements must yield the familiar squared spacetime interval
(ds)2 suggests that the individual measurements are some kind of quantized effects that collectively combine
to produce what we perceive as spacetime intervals.

Return to MathPages Main Menu

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm