The Dirac formalism

of quantum mechanics
Anders Blom
Division of Solid State Theory
Department of Physics, Lund University
Sölvegatan 14 A, S–223 62 Lund, Sweden

Anders.Blom@teorfys.lu.se
October 1, 2002

1 Introduction
The introductory courses in quantum mechanics usually work within the wave formalism, and
express everything in real-space wavefunctions. This is probably partly due to a desire to make
analogs with classical physics, in particular optics, and partly due to the fact that such courses
often follow the historical development of the field.
If one instead introduces quantum mechanics from a more fundamental perspective, by formu-
lating a few basic postulates, one finds, among many other things, that much of the formalism
becomes independent of any particular representation (such as the three-dimensional real space),
and that spin – which has no classical analogue – can be introduced effortlessly. Instead of working
with three-dimensional wavefunctions, integrals and differential operators, the formalism instead
closely resembles that of Euclidian vector spaces, and we can utilize well-known tools from linear
algebra.
In this short document we shall review the basic properties of states and operators in the
formalism developed by the English physicist P. A. M. Dirac, which is the most convenient repre-
sentation of this latter approach. I fully admit that the material is essentially just copied from the
excellent book Modern Quantum Mechanics by J. J. Sakurai, published by Addison Wesley (1995),
which follows exactly the path outlined above. I have skipped the proofs and some elaborations,
and tried to make some parts simpler, or more extensive, as I thought it was warranted.
You will note that the term ”represented by” appears a lot in the text which follows. This is not
due to my laziness, but instead indicates a very fundamental principle. The physics of quantum
mechanics – and of course also other fields of physics and the nature of the universe itself – is
independent of how we choose to formulate it mathematically. What we study here is merely one
possible way to represent the laws of physics, in a way which is consistent with all experiments
which we perform to draw conclusions about the state of the physical reality surrounding us.

1
2 The ket and bra spaces
2.1 States
In the Dirac formalism of quantum mechanics, a physical state is represented by a state vector or
a ket αi belonging to a complex vector (ket) space. The ket is postulated to contain complete
information of the physical state, i.e. it holds the answer to all conceivable measurements we
can perform on the system. Another way to characterize the state is therefore to say that it is a
collection of all quantum labels (or quantum numbers), collectively represented by α in the ket
above, which describe the physical state we wish to consider.
Kets can be added, such that the sum αi + βi is just another ket γi, and so is also c αi =
αi c, where c is a complex number. In fact, αi and c αi are postulated to represent to same
physical state, unless c = 0 in which case c αi is the null ket.
An observable is defined as something we can measure, such as the angular momentum or the
position of a particle. In our formalism, observables will be represented by operators. When an
operator  acts on a ket αi, the results is another ket. In some cases

 αi = a αi (1)

where a is just a complex number. In this case, the ket αi is said to be an eigenket of the
operator  and a is the eigenvalue. Often the eigenkets are labeled by the eigenvalue itself, ai.
It is natural to use the name eigenstate for the physical state corresponding to an eigenket.
A fundamental postulate of great importance is that the eigenkets of an observable span
the entire vector space. In other words, any arbitrary ket βi can be expanded in the eigenkets
ai of an operator  as
X
βi = ca ai , (2)
a

where ca are complex coefficients (numbers). The eigenkets are complete and orthogonal (see
proof in Sakurai, pp. 17–18) and hence the expansion is unique.
This is the first place where we can see a strong and clear parallel to the world of linear algebra,
where we know that any vector can be expressed in a set of basis vectors, and that the expansion
is unique if the basis vectors are all linearly independent. Keep in mind, however, that unlike
the Euclidian vector spaces often considered in the basic mathematics courses, our vector space is
complex.
We now postulate that to each ket αi in the ket space, there exists a corresponding quantity
called a bra, denoted hα ,

αi ↔ hα .

All the bras together span a bra space, which can be viewed as a mirror image of the ket space.
It is important to remember that the bra corresponding to c αi is postulated to be c∗ hα :

c∗ hα ↔ c αi .

One can form an inner product between two kets αi and βi, which we write as



hα · βi = hα βi .

2
The inner product is a complex number, and is essentially equivalent to the scalar product of
two vectors in a usual Euclidian vector space. There is however one important difference. For two
usual vectors a and b, the scalar products a · b = b · a, but since the inner product in general is
complex, we postulate the following property:
∗
hα βi = hβ αi . (3)
From this follows that hα αi is a real number, and we postulate that it is positive, hα αi ≥ 0,
where the equality sign only holds for the null ket. As a natural extension of the usual scalar
product, two kets αi and βi are said to be orthogonal if
hα βi = 0.
Finally, we shall forpthe present discussion assume that the kets always can be normalized by
dividing by its norm hα αi, i.e. we require that hα αi < ∞. We will not consider continuous
spectra (which are not normalizable), except for a few specific cases later on.

2.2 Operators
Having revised the basic properties of kets, bras and states, we now turn our attention to a deeper
discussion of operators. Some properties of operators are rather trivial (although important, from
a fundamental point of view), such as how to determine if two operators are equal, the null operator
(which produces a null ket) and the fact that operators are commutative and associative under
addition. Such details can be found in the book by Sakurai.

Furthermore, we shall in this paper
only consider linear operators, such that X̂ a αi+b βi = aX̂ αi+bX̂ βi for complex numbers
a and b.
More interestingly, and important to remember, is that operators are (in general, there are
exceptions) non-commutative under multiplication, i.e.
X̂ Ŷ 6= Ŷ X̂ (4)

They are, however, associative: X̂(Ŷ Ẑ) = (X̂ Ŷ )Ẑ

We saw earlier that an operator acts on a ket from the left, but how to operate on a bra? For
this, we introduce an operator denoted † which acts in the mirror image bra space from the right:
 αi ↔ hα † . (5)

The operator † is named the Hermitian conjugate of Â. An operator is called Hermitian or
self-adjoint if † = Â.
Later on we will show how to represent operators as matrices, and that the Hermitian conjugated
operator corresponds to the transposed complex conjugated matrix. It is therefore natural that
(X̂ Ŷ )† = Ŷ † X̂ † , (6)
since this rule applies to the transpose of a matrix product. This property can easily be proved by
using the property (5).
There is another type of product, called outer product, between two kets αi and βi, which
is defined as



αi · hβ = αi hβ .

3
Unlike the inner product, the outer product is not a complex number but an operator.
The final postulate regarding kets and bras is the so-called associative axiom of multipli-
cation, which states that as long as we do not make any ”illegal” combinations of bras and kets,
the associate property holds. Illegal combinations are for instance αi βi, and simply do not
exist.
When an outer product acts on a ket, we can from the associative axiom change the order of
operations,



αi hβ γi = αi hβ γi . (7)

Now the quantity in parenthesis on the right hand side is an inner product, and hence a complex
number δ = hβ γi. This is why the outer product is an operator: when acting on a ket, it gives
another ket, in the case above this ket is δ αi. An important property, which is easy to prove, is
that if

X̂ = αi hβ then X̂ † = βi hα . (8)

A second, perhaps even more important, illustration of the associative axiom can be seen by
using a different order of kets and including an operator. By the associative axiom,





hα · Â βi = hα Â · βi , (9)

and hence we can skip the parentheses and simply write

hα | Â | βi.

Since hβ † is the bra corresponding to the ket  βi, we have

n o∗
hβ † · αi = hβ|† |αi∗ ,


hα|Â|βi = hα · Â βi = (10)

where Eq. (5) was used. If  is Hermitian, then clearly hα|Â|βi = hβ|Â|αi∗ .

2.3 Basis kets

In the previous section we postulated that the eigenkets of an operator span the entire vector
space, and it was stated that the eigenkets of an operator form an orthogonal set. In fact, the set
can be taken to be orthonormal, since we can always normalize the kets. Hence,

ha a0 i = δaa0 (11)

for two eigenstates ai and a0 i of an operator Â.

For the particular case of Hermitian operators, it is further possible to show that all eigenvalues
are real. Since physical properties are always required to be real, it is natural to represent physical
observables by Hermitian operators.
We postulated earlier that any state ket kan be expanded in the eigenstates of an operator,
X
βi = ca ai . (12)
a

4
Multiplying from the left with the bra ha0 we can determine the expansion coefficients, using
Eq. (11), through the relation
X X
ha0 βi = ca ha0 ai = ca δaa0 = ca0 . (13)
a a

This means that we can write

X
βi = ai ha βi , (14)
a

which we immediately can compare with the corresponding expression for a vector V in Euclidian
space,
X

V= êi êi · V ,
i

for an orthonormal (note, this is necessary!) set of basis vectors {êi }.

By the associative axiom one can alternatively consider ai ha βi as a product of a number
ha βi and a ket ai, or the operator ai ha acting on the ket βi. Since βi is an arbitrary ket,
we must have
X
ai ha = 1. (15)
a

This very important and useful property is called the completeness relation or closure, and is
an immediate consequence of the fact that the eigenkets span the entire ket space. Since 1 is just
the identity operator, we can insert the left hand side of Eq. (15) where ever we wish, in order to
simplify or derive new expressions. For instance, if βi is normalized, we can show that
!
X X 2
X
1 = hβ βi = hβ · ai ha βi = |ha βi| = |ca |2 . (16)
a a a

2
Hence we can interpret |ca |2 = |ha βi| as the probability to find the state βi in the state ai.
We stated that outer products are operators. Let us therefore check what happens when we
apply the operator a0 i ha0 to the state βi:

a0 i ha0 · βi = a0 i ha0 ai ha βi = ca0 a0 i .

(17)

Hence the operator a0 i ha0 selects only the part of the ket βi which is ”parallel” to a0 i, and it
is therefore know as the projection operator, and labeled
X
Λa ≡ ai ha , 1= Λa . (18)
a

The corresponding projection of a vector V on a direction defined by a vector ê of unit magnitude

in Euclidian vector space is well-known to be ê(ê · V), and the ”projection operator” can in this
case be thought of as ê(ê·).

5
3 The matrix formalism
We have already several times, without reflecting over why, called our states ”vectors”. In this
section we shall present even stronger analogies between the ket space formalism and linear algebra,
and represent states as (complex) vectors and operators as matrices.
The matrix formulation of quantum mechanics, due to Heisenberg, Jordan and Born, was in
fact derived parallel to Schrödinger’s wave-mechanical formalism. The two approaches could later
in a series of papers by Schrödinger, Bohr, Born and Heisenberg be shown to be equivalent1 . Both
these formalisms are united in the abstract formalism due to Dirac we are considering here.
By using the closure relation (15) twice, we can write an operator X̂ as
XX
X̂ = ai ha|X̂|a0 i ha0 (19)
a a0

If there are N eigenkets ai of the operator Â, there are N 2 terms in the sum, and hence N 2
numbers ha|Â|a0 i. We can place these in a N × N matrix, where the matrix elements are arranged
by columns and rows according to

a X̂ a0



↑ ↑
row column

The matrix formed in this way is said to be a representation of the operator X̂. If we label the
eigenstates of  as ai i with eigenvalues ai and i = 1..N , then we have explicitly
 
ha1 |X̂|a1 i ha1 |X̂|a2 i . . .
.
 
X̂ = X = ha2 |X̂|a1 i ha2 |X̂|a2 i . . . (20)
 
 
.. .. ..
. . .
.
We will here and onwards use the symbol = in the meaning ”represents”, and denote by X the
matrix which represents an operator X̂.
Note that the matrix elements are just complex numbers. Although it should be obvious
from the above presentation, it is certainly worth pointing out that the matrix representation
depends on which operator  we use as a basis.
If the matrix formalism is to be useful, we must retain all the well-known properties of matrix
manipulations. Remembering the rule (10), we can see that Hermitian conjugation simply
corresponds to transposing and complex conjugating the matrix. Since matrices in general do
not commute under multiplication, the same applies to operators, as was stated already earlier.
We also find that the rule (6) holds, by the arguments presented just before this equation.
Furthermore, the operator relation Ẑ = X̂ Ŷ becomes
X
ha0 |Ẑ|ai = ha0 |X̂ Ŷ |ai = ha0 |X̂|a00 iha00 |Ŷ |ai (21)
a00

1 See A. Messiah, Quantum Mehcanics, Dover (1999), pp. 45–49 for a short but illuminating discussion on the
early development of quantum mechanics during the years 1923–30.

6
for each element in the matrix Z. We just inserted the identity operator in the form of Eq. (15)
between X̂ and Ŷ , and recovered the rule for matrix multiplication.
What happens if we now wish to act with the operator on a ket βi to form a new ket γi =
X̂ βi? The ket γi can also be expanded in the eigenkets of Â, and the expansion coefficients are
given by
X
ha γi = ha|X̂|βi = ha|X̂|a0 i ha0 βi . (22)
a0

But this is nothing but the usual rule for a matrix multiplying a column vector of numbers ha0 βi.
Hence we have found that while operators are represented by matrices, kets are represented by
column vectors, where each element is an expansion coefficient:
 
ha1 βi
. 
 
βi = ha2 βi (23)

..
 
.

In a similar way it is not difficult to show that bras are represented by row vectors, with the
minor change that all coefficients must be complex conjugated:
.
   
∗ ∗
hβ = hβ a1 i , hβ a2 i , . . . = ha1 βi , ha2 βi , . . . . (24)

From this we immediately find that the inner product indeed corresponds closely to the usual
scalar product,
 
ha1 γi
.
   X
hβ γi = ha1 βi , ha2 βi , . . . ha2 γi =
∗ ∗
hβ ai i hai γi , (25)
 
..
  i
.

where we again recognize the identity operator in the last term.

As we pointed out earlier, the matrix representation of the operators (and of course also the
kets and bras) depends intimately on which operator  is used as a basis. Naturally, also the
operator  itself can be represented as a matrix, and in its own basis it is obvious that it becomes
a diagonal matrix,

hai |Â|aj i = ai δij . (26)

We can also write

X X
 = ai ai i hai = ai Λai , (27)
i i

where Λai is the projection operator defined in Eq. (18).

7
Example
The presentation above was rather heavy with a large number of indices. The principle is however
simple, and with a short illustrative example, all should become clear. We shall use a spin 12 system,
where the dimensionality of the ket space is 2; the only possible values of the spin projection are
up and down. We shall use the eigenstates ↑i and ↓i of the Ŝz operator as basis states; the
eigenvalues are ±1/2 in units where ~ = 1.
The eigenstates are clearly represented by the column matrices
   
. 1 . 0
↑i = , ↓i = ,
0 1

and a general state γi = a ↑i + b ↓i by

 
. a
γi = .
b

Two operators which are very useful when discussing angular momentum are the lowering and
raising (or ladder) operators

Ŝ+ ≡ ↑i h↓ , Ŝ− ≡ ↓i h↑ .
†
Note that these operators are not Hermitian; in fact Ŝ+ = Ŝ− .
Let us consider their action on the eigenkets:

Ŝ+ ↑i = ↑i h↓ ↑i = 0,

Ŝ+ ↓i = ↑i h↓ ↓i = ↑i ,

Ŝ− ↑i = ↓i h↑ ↑i = ↓i ,

Ŝ− ↓i = ↓i h↑ ↓i = 0,

by the orthogonality of the basis kets. Thus Ŝ+ flips a down-spin into an up-state, and opposite
for Ŝ− , which takes an up-spin into a down-state. To consider the action of the operators on the
general spin state γi is a useful exercise!
Finally, let us write down the matrix representation of the two ladder operators in the Ŝz basis.
The only non-zero matrix elements are

h↑ |Ŝ+ | ↓i = h↑ ↑i h↓ ↓i = 1, h↓ |Ŝ− | ↑i = h↓ ↓i h↑ ↑i = 1,

and hence
   
. 0 1 . 0 0
Ŝ+ = Ŝ− =
0 0 1 0

and we can check the previous result

    
. 0 1 0 1 .
Ŝ+ ↓i = = = ↑i .
0 0 1 0

8
4 Measurements
Although the considerations of quantum mechanical measurements are not particular to the Dirac
formulation, there appear a few postulates which are worth mentioning in the same context as the
rest of the formalism. We shall however be rather brief; a thorough discussion on the measure-
ment process can be found in Sakurai, Chapter 1.4, which also includes details on the important
uncertainty relation. Another concept closely related to measurements is that of compatible
or commuting operators. We will however not overload our discussion by including this topic,
but refer the interested reader to the literature.
Assume that we are presented with a quantum mechanical system, such as a particle, of which
no information is given. Before any measurement is carried out, the only thing we can say about its
state βi is that is can be expressed as a linear combination of the eigenstates of some observable
A, represented by the operator  with eigenvalues a:
X
βi = ca ai . (28)
a

We now make two postulates regarding the measurement process. First, we claim that the
only possible outcomes of a measurement of the observable A are P the eigenvalues a, and that the
probability of obtaining the result a is |ca |2 = | hβ ai |2 . Since a |ca |2 = 1 as was shown above,
the probabilities add up to unity, which is reassuring. This so-called probabilistic interpretation
lies at the heart of quantum mechanics, but was the cause of much debate in its early days.
The second postulate is, that immediately when the measurement is performed, the state jumps
into the eigenstate ai. In result, any subsequent measurements will yield the eigenvalue a with
certainty.
One must however be a bit careful with the probabilistic interpretation. A single measurement
on a quantum mechanical state yields only one result, and does not give us any possibility to
determine the coefficients ca . For this, one must instead perform a series of measurements on an
ensemble of identically prepared systems. In this case, one may register with what probabil-
ity each eigenvalue a appears, and hence determine |ca |2 . Note, however, that it is impossible to
determine the phase of ca (remember that the coefficients are complex numbers), only its magni-
tude. Furthermore, if a long series of measurements are performed, we can define the expectation
value
X
hAi ≡ hβ|Â|βi = a|ca |2 . (29)
a

Note that the expectation value depends on the particular state βi. The definition of the expec-
tation value clearly agrees with our usual understanding of the average measured value.

5 Change of basis
It was pointed out earlier that the matrix representation of an operator depends on which basis it
is expressed in. It is therefore of interest to try to relate two matrices expressed in different bases
to eachother. In Euclidian vector space, where one may consider any orthonormal set of vectors as
a basis, this is done by orthogonal rotation matrices. In the complex ket space, one instead uses

9
unitary matrices (which of course represent unitary operators), defined by the property

U U † = U †U = 1 (30)

Hence U −1 = U † .
Assume now that we have two non-commuting operators2 Â and B̂. One can then prove, that
the basis kets bi of B̂ can always be expressed in the basis kets ai of  through some unitary
operator Û (for a proof, see Sakurai p. 37):

bi i = Û ai i . (31)

To find the matrix representation U of Û we can merely use Eq. (31) to rewrite the matrix element
in the Â-representation:
A
Uij = hai |Û |aj i = haj bi i . (32)

The next step is to express an arbitrary state ket γi, initially given in the ”old” basis of  as
X
γi = cai ai i , (33)
i

in the ”new” basis of B̂. Inserting the unit operator (15) once more, we get
X X
hbj γi = hbj ai i hai γi = haj |Û † |ai i hai γi (34)
i i

where we used the bra version of Eq. (31), hbj = haj Û † . The expression above is simply the matrix
U † multiplying the column vector of the expansion coefficients ca . Hence the vector representation
of the state ket in the new basis is found by multiplying the vector representation in the old basis
by the matrix U † ;

{New} = U † {Old},

as Sakurai puts it symbolically.

The fact that the state kets are transformed in the opposite way, compared to the basis kets
(which are transformed into the new basis by Û ), is completely analogous to the fact that in
Euclidian vector space, the coordinates of vectors rotate clock-wise if we rotate the basis vectors
counter-clockwise, to keep the actual physical vector (i.e. the state) fixed in space.
Once we know how to transform the state vectors, we also need to evaluate the matrices
representing a general operator X̂ in the new basis. By inserting two closure relations and using
Eq. (31) twice, we get the matrix element in the new basis
XX
hbi |X̂|bj i = hbi an i han |X̂|am i ham bj i
n m
XX (35)
= hai |Û † |an ihan |X̂|am iham |Û |aj i
n m

2 If they commute, they have a common set of eigenstates, and this situation is not interesting.

10
which can be identified as the matrix product3
X B = U † X A U. (36)
In linear algebra this is known as a similarity transformation.
A useful exercise is to prove that the trace
X X
Tr X = Xii = hai |X̂|ai i (37)
i i

of a matrix X corresponding to an operator X̂, is in fact independent of which basis is used to

represent it. As a consequence, since we can always represent an operator in its own eigenstates,
Y
Tr X = xi (38)
i

where xi are the eigenvalues of the operator X̂.

Example
As an example, consider the spin 12 system of the previous section again. Assume we wish to
change our basis to the eigenstates of Ŝx .
From the Stern–Gerlach experiments (or from the general theory of angular momentum), it is
known that the eigenvalues of the Ŝx operator are also ±1/2 (with ~ = 1), and the eigenkets are
1
↑ix = √ ( ↑iz + ↓iz ) ,
2
(39)
1
↓ix = √ ( ↑iz − ↓iz ) ,
2
where ↑iz and ↓iz are the eigenkets of Ŝz . Hence the unitary transformation is given by
    
↑x 1 1 1 ↑z
=√ .
↓x 2 1 −1 ↓z
It is a useful exercise to check that the so-defined matrix U is indeed unitary. An alternative way
to determine the transformation matrix would be to diagonalize the matrix representation of the
operator Ŝx in the Ŝz basis,
 
. 1 0 1
Ŝx =
2 1 0 z
which is also left as an exercise. Given the eigenvectors (which of course are nothing but those
presented in Eq. (39)), the transformation matrix is found by placing the eigenvectors as the
columns of U .

3 It is essential to keep in mind that this relationships depends on that bi i = Û ai i; if the relationship was
the opposite (sometimes it is easier to express the old basis in the new one), i.e. ai i = V̂ bi i, the matrix
transformation becomes X B = V X A V † .

11
 Let us now transform the operators Ŝ± to the new basis. U † is trivially obtained from U , and
we arrive at the matrix representation
      
1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 −1
U † Ŝ+ U = = ,
2 1 −1 0 0 z 1 −1 2 1 −1 x
      
† 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
U Ŝ− U = = .
2 1 −1 1 0 z 1 −1 2 −1 −1 x

As a check, we can now evaluate

 
1 x x
 1 1 0
Ŝ+ + Ŝ− = ,
2 2 0 −1 x

which indeed is expected, since we know that Ŝ± = Ŝx ± iŜy , and thus 12 (Ŝ+ + Ŝ− ) = Ŝx which is
diagonal in its own basis, with the eigenvalues appearing on the diagonal.

6 The real-space wavefunction

As a final point in this expose of the basic properties of kets and their relatives, it is time to make
the connection to wave formalism. For simplicity we consider only the one-dimensional case, but
the results are easily generalized to three dimensions.
Although we have never really used it, it has been assumed until now that all states are
normalizable. An important group of states which fall outside this category are the eigenstates xi
of the position operator x̂. But even if the norm is infinite, we can always define the eigenvalue x
from x̂ xi = x xi, which simply is the position in real space.
For the interested reader, Sakurai discusses the continuous spectrum in detail in Chapters 1.6–
1.7. The only result we really need from that is that the closure relation now becomes
Z ∞
ai ha → xi hx dx. (40)
−∞

Hence the expansion of an arbitrary state is given by

Z ∞
αi = xi hx αi dx. (41)
−∞

Let us compare this expression with an expansion such as Eq. (14), where we found that
| ha βi |2 was the probability to find the state βi in the state ai. If we make the analogous
interpretation now, we find that | hx αi |2 dx is the probability to observe the particle within the
small interval dx. Hence it is perfectly natural to define the wavefunction ψα (x) for the state
αi as the inner product of the state with the position eigenket at x,

ψα (x) ≡ hx αi , (42)

since this gives exactly the same probability interpretation as above, which we are familiar with
from wave mechanics. In this way, the wavefunction receives no special status, but is simply yet
another expansion coefficient, viz. the projection of the state onto the position eigenstates.

12
 From this follows immediately all the familiar rules of wave mechanics. As an example, consider
the inner product between two wavefunctions ψα (x) and ψβ (x) corresponding to two difference
states. By inserting the closure (40), we get
Z ∞ Z ∞
hα βi = hα xi hx βi dx = ψα∗ (x)ψβ (x) dx. (43)
−∞ −∞

Hence we see that the inner product measures the overlap between the two wavefunctions. This
is in perfect accordance with our earlier stated general interpretation of hα βi, that is measures
the probability amplitude of state βi to be found in the state αi.

13