Are Hilbert spaces uniquely defined for a given system?

diegzumillo
Messages
177
Reaction score
20
Hi there!

Repeating the question on the title: Are Hilbert spaces uniquely defined for a given system?

I started to think about this when I was reading about Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures/formulations. From my understanding, you can describe a system analyzing the time dependent state defined by \left\vert \psi \left( t\right) \right\rangle =U\left( t,t_{0}\right)\left\vert \psi \left( t_{0}\right) \right\rangle, while keeping the observables time-independent (wich would be the Schrödinger picture). And this is totally equivalent to description of the system by a time-independent state, and observables defined by A^{\prime }\left( t\right) =U^{\dagger }\left( t,t_{0}\right) AU\left(t,t_{0}\right). (Heisenberg picture) However, I don't think it's the same Hilbert space! In the first one, the elements of the space are time dependent, while in the other they're not.

Am I making any sense? :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The short answer is "yes". The Hilbert space is what defines what physical system we're talking about, so it must be uniquely defined (up to isomorphisms of course) for each physical system.

The Hilbert space of one-particle states consists of (equivalence classes of) square integrable functions from \mathbb R^3 (not \mathbb R^4) into \mathbb C. Your |\psi(t)\rangle is a member of that space, but the map t\mapsto|\psi(t)\rangle (the "time dependent wavefunction") is a curve in that space.
 
Right. Thanks Fredrik!
That clear things up :)
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top