- #1
Opus_723
- 178
- 3
I'm trying to come up with a proof of the operator identity typically used in the Mori projector operator formalism for Generalized Langevin Equations,
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+\int_{0}^{t}dse^{(t-s)L}PLe^{s(1-P)L}[/tex],
where L is the Liouville operator and P is a projection operator that projects onto a finite subset of Hilbert space, abstractly defined by
[tex]PB = \sum_{j,k}(B,A_j)((A,A)^{-1})_{j,k}A_k[/tex]
Where A is the set of functions to be projected onto and ( . , . ) denotes an unspecified inner product.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty rusty with operators in general, and although I can write down a "derivation," it relies on an assumption that I can't figure out a justification for. Here is what I did:
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}-e^{t(1-P)L}[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}(1-e^{-tPL})[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}(e^{-0*PL}-e^{-tPL}) [/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}(-e^{-tPL})\bigg|_0 ^t[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}\int_{0}^{t}\frac{d}{ds}(-e^{-sPL})[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}\int_{0}^{t}PLe^{-sPL}[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}\int_{0}^{t}PLe^{-sL+s(1-P)L}[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)L}PLe^{s(1-P)L}[/tex]
Notice, however, that throughout this process I liberally assumed, in many steps, that the projection operator P and the Liouville operator L *commute*, mostly by blithely using the typical properties of the exponential as if the operators were numbers, but also in the last step more explicitly. So I see 3 options:
1) L and P are guaranteed to commute for some reason that's not obvious to me.
2) This is a bad way to prove the identity and if I did it some other way I wouldn't need them to commute, or maybe I am completely misunderstanding how to manipulate these objects.
3) This assumption is *not* guaranteed, but it *is* actually necessary for the identity to hold even though I haven't seen this assumption stated explicitly anywhere.
My guess is that either 1 or 2 is the correct answer, but I'm not able to puzzle it out. Can anyone with more experience with projection operators help me understand this identity? Thank you for your time.
EDIT: If it helps, I'm following the treatment in Ch. 8 of Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics by Robert Zwanzig, although this same identity seems to pop up along with an "it is easy to show that..." in every treatment I can find.
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+\int_{0}^{t}dse^{(t-s)L}PLe^{s(1-P)L}[/tex],
where L is the Liouville operator and P is a projection operator that projects onto a finite subset of Hilbert space, abstractly defined by
[tex]PB = \sum_{j,k}(B,A_j)((A,A)^{-1})_{j,k}A_k[/tex]
Where A is the set of functions to be projected onto and ( . , . ) denotes an unspecified inner product.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty rusty with operators in general, and although I can write down a "derivation," it relies on an assumption that I can't figure out a justification for. Here is what I did:
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}-e^{t(1-P)L}[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}(1-e^{-tPL})[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}(e^{-0*PL}-e^{-tPL}) [/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}(-e^{-tPL})\bigg|_0 ^t[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}\int_{0}^{t}\frac{d}{ds}(-e^{-sPL})[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}\int_{0}^{t}PLe^{-sPL}[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+e^{tL}\int_{0}^{t}PLe^{-sL+s(1-P)L}[/tex]
[tex]e^{tL} = e^{t(1-P)L}+\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)L}PLe^{s(1-P)L}[/tex]
Notice, however, that throughout this process I liberally assumed, in many steps, that the projection operator P and the Liouville operator L *commute*, mostly by blithely using the typical properties of the exponential as if the operators were numbers, but also in the last step more explicitly. So I see 3 options:
1) L and P are guaranteed to commute for some reason that's not obvious to me.
2) This is a bad way to prove the identity and if I did it some other way I wouldn't need them to commute, or maybe I am completely misunderstanding how to manipulate these objects.
3) This assumption is *not* guaranteed, but it *is* actually necessary for the identity to hold even though I haven't seen this assumption stated explicitly anywhere.
My guess is that either 1 or 2 is the correct answer, but I'm not able to puzzle it out. Can anyone with more experience with projection operators help me understand this identity? Thank you for your time.
EDIT: If it helps, I'm following the treatment in Ch. 8 of Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics by Robert Zwanzig, although this same identity seems to pop up along with an "it is easy to show that..." in every treatment I can find.
Last edited: