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>
).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)
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…
I think 〉 means a very hungry (or at least large mouthed) crocodile, and > is just a normal one.
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.