It is just a notation for linear algebra and linear operators on complex vector spaces together with their dual space both in the finite-dimensional and infinite-dimensional case. Really quite simple stuff actually…
I guess not. Its just that when I hear ‘theoretical physics’ I immediately think of particle physics (and related fields). I have this idea that in most branches of physics people just say the topic, eg. astronomy, material sciences, or whatever; and don’t usually specify whether they are doing theoretical work or experimental/empirical work. But in particle physics … my impression is that people are more likely to specify. Anyway, that’s just my own bias I guess.
Surely in theoretical physics, the most common use of
>is in a ket (eg.|ψ>).Crocodile want to eat cactus ?
That cactus is the devil!
Crocodile needs eat cactus to see window
arguably, it’s |ψ〉, which is not the same as >
wow that’s a big difference (I have no idea what you are talking about)
I think 〉 means a very hungry (or at least large mouthed) crocodile, and > is just a normal one.
It is just a notation for linear algebra and linear operators on complex vector spaces together with their dual space both in the finite-dimensional and infinite-dimensional case. Really quite simple stuff actually…
smiles and nods, smiles and nods…
No? Not everyone’s doing work on quantum systems. Far from it. Most people do not need to use Dirac notation.
I guess not. Its just that when I hear ‘theoretical physics’ I immediately think of particle physics (and related fields). I have this idea that in most branches of physics people just say the topic, eg. astronomy, material sciences, or whatever; and don’t usually specify whether they are doing theoretical work or experimental/empirical work. But in particle physics … my impression is that people are more likely to specify. Anyway, that’s just my own bias I guess.