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

Bras, Kets, and Matrices 1/10/14
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm 1 / 8

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

Bras, Kets, and Matrices 1/10/14
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm 2 / 8

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 a
mn
and a
nm
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 additive properties of
complex numbers, but not the multiplicative properties. In particular, for ordinary complex
Bras, Kets, and Matrices 1/10/14
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm 3 / 8
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 b we
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
l
1
, l
2
, l
3
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

Bras, Kets, and Matrices 1/10/14
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm 4 / 8

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 A
j
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 e
iq
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

Bras, Kets, and Matrices 1/10/14
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm 5 / 8

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 q
1
, q
2
, and the corresponding momenta p
1
, p
2
, , 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 q
j
is incompatible with the corresponding
momentum p
j
. 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
Bras, Kets, and Matrices 1/10/14
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm 6 / 8
(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 x
0
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

Bras, Kets, and Matrices 1/10/14
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm 7 / 8

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 (dx
0
)
2
, (dx
1
)
2
, (dx
2
)
2
, (dx
3
)
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

Bras, Kets, and Matrices 1/10/14
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm 8 / 8