Complete basis for quantum oscillator Hilbert space

[smallphi]

In the creation/annihilation operator picture the Hilbert state of a quantum harmonic oscillator is spanned by the eigenstates |n> of the number operator.

I've never seen a proof that:

1. the ground state |0> is unique
2. the states |n> form a complete basis i.e. any state in that Hilbert space can be decomposed into them

Any references or explanations?

 

[vanesch]

In the creation/annihilation operator picture the Hilbert state of a quantum harmonic oscillator is spanned by the eigenstates |n> of the number operator.

I've never seen a proof that:

1. the ground state |0> is unique

It doesn't have to be ! You postulate that it is unique. However, what you can easily show is that if there are different ground states, then they give rise to independent "series" of excited states (in other words, you have in fact several harmonic oscillators in parallel).

Nothing stops one from having |0_1> and |0_2>, and having:
a+ |01> = |1_1> etc...
and
a+ |02> = |1_2> etc...

As such, (a+)^n (u |0_1> + v |0_2>) = Constant (u |n_1> + v |n_2> ), and you have a superposition (coefs u and v) of two parallel harmonic oscillators.

2. the states |n> form a complete basis i.e. any state in that Hilbert space can be decomposed into them

Any references or explanations?

Again, this is (the same) hypothesis that you accept, namely that the unique ground state and its family of excited states reached with a+ is spanning the entire hilbert space of states.

You could just as well make another hypothesis, and, as above, introduce several independent ground states, with a (new) set of operators which gives transitions between them.

 

[smallphi]

The original Hilbert space is spanned by eigenverctors of the X (or P) operators (although those are not square integrable so don't belong to the space themselves). So the Hilbert space is fixed/defined from the very begining, you have no freedom re-defining it by postulating unique |0> or completeness of |n>'s.

Your explanation maybe works if you start with a HO Hamiltonian directly written in terms of creating and annihilation operators and the Hilbert space is yet not defined.

My question is related to the question how, given a fixed/pre-defined Hibert space we determine a 'complete set of commuting observables' i. e. a set of commuting operators whose common eigenvectors span the space. In the case of harmonic oscillator the complete set of commuting observables consists of only the number operator:

N = a^+ a

 

[Hans de Vries]

In the creation/annihilation operator picture the Hilbert state of a quantum harmonic oscillator is spanned by the eigenstates |n> of the number operator.

I've never seen a proof that:

1. the ground state |0> is unique

The ground state can also be obtained by the requirement that the
annihilation operator acting on the vacuum gives zero, that is:

{\hat a}|0 \rangle\ \equiv\ 0

thus

\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial \psi} + \psi \right) |0 \rangle\ =\ 0

which is satisfied by:

|0 \rangle \ =\ e^{-\psi^2/2}

Which is the usual (unnormalized) ground state.

2. the states |n> form a complete basis i.e. any state in that Hilbert space can be decomposed into them

Any references or explanations?

A proof of the orthogonality is given in Arfken and Weber:
"Mathematical Methods for Physicists", chapter 13 which handles the
Hermite polynomials including the canonical quantization with creation,
annihilation and number operators.Regards, Hans

 

[vanesch]

The original Hilbert space is spanned by eigenverctors of the X (or P) operators (although those are not square integrable so don't belong to the space themselves). So the Hilbert space is fixed/defined from the very begining, you have no freedom re-defining it by postulating unique |0> or completeness of |n>'s.

Ah, then that's easy (see Hans' proof for example). I was indeed considering an abstract harmonic oscillator setup, defined by the creation and annihilation operators, and not based upon the mechanical 1-particle model.
That the set of eigenstates of the hamiltonian is complete should be obvious given that it is a hermitean operator, so it gives automatically rise to a complete set of eigenvectors.
The |0> is unique then follows from an explicit calculation as a function of the defining states of the hilbert space, which is here the position operator eigenvectors - that's what Hans did.

Your explanation maybe works if you start with a HO Hamiltonian directly written in terms of creating and annihilation operators and the Hilbert space is yet not defined.

Indeed, that's what I was considering, given that the mechanical example is rather straight-forward.

My question is related to the question how, given a fixed/pre-defined Hibert space we determine a 'complete set of commuting observables' i. e. a set of commuting operators whose common eigenvectors span the space. In the case of harmonic oscillator the complete set of commuting observables consists of only the number operator:

N = a^+ a

In fact, although in most intro QM courses, things are not presented that way, the Hilbert space is never "pre-given", but is always the result of a *postulated* complete set of commuting observables, for which one *postulates* a common set of eigenvectors and their associated eigenvalues.

You START by enumerating (as a postulate for your specific quantum-mechanical model) a basis, and you characterise that basis by postulating a complete set of operators, which have that basis as eigenvectors. THIS then defines your hilbert space, and all the rest you're going to do will have to be defined as a function of your postulated complete set of operators and your postulated basis.

For instance, you can define/postulate that you have a quantum-mechanical system with, say, 6 basis states, and 2 operators A and B.
Let us call the 6 basis states for the moment, |a>, |b>, |c>, |d>, |e> and |f>.
We next have to postulate what are their eigenvalues under A and B:

Say:
A |a> = 0, A |b> = |b>, A|c> = 0, A |d> = |d>, A|e> = 0, A|f> = |f>

B |a> = 0, B |b> = 0, B|c> = |c>, B |d> = |d>, B|e> = 2|e>, B|f> = 2|f>

In other words, A has 2 eigenvalues, 0 and 1, and the eigenspace of 0 is spanned by a,c and e.
B has 3 eigenvalues, 0, 1 and 2, and the eigenspace of 0, for instance, consists of a and b.

All this is part of the *postulates of your specific quantum-mechanical model*.

The next thing to do is to define a dynamics over that space, by giving a Hamiltonian as a function of A and B, and next you can introduce all kinds of observables, which should also be expressed as a function of A and B.

In fact, the above simple model is just a 2-spin system, which is the composition of a spin-1/2 and a spin-1 system, and A and B are shifts of the respective sigma_z: for instance: A = sigma1_z + 1/2, and B = sigma2_z + 1.

Now, there is a specific class of QM models, which is inspired by classical mechanics, and which says the following:

take the configuration space of the classical system, and its generalized variables q1,...qn. Associate with each point of configuration space (defined by the point {q1,q2,...qn}) one single basis vector, which we call |q1,q2,...qn>, and consider n operators Q1, ... Qn as the complete set of commuting observables. The eigenvalue of Qk on |q1,...,qk,...,qn> equals qk by postulate.

So the quantum-mechanical model "inspired" by a classical model, on the above example, is simply given by a hilbert space which associates a basis vector to each point in configuration space, and a complete set of commuting observables corresponding to the set of generalized coordinates, which have this basis as common eigenbasis, and which have as eigenvalue the value of the generalized coordinate of the corresponding point in configuration space.

The momentum operators {P1,...,Pn} are defined as being those operators that satisfy the canonical commutation relations with the set of operators {Q1,...Qn}, and are hence defined in function of {Q1,...Qn}.

But we can think of other quantum-mechanical models. Spin systems are such (they are fundamentally not inspired by a classical system). A priori, the harmonic oscillator is also different, because (and it was in that frame that my previous comments were made) you can define it abstractly by introducing a single operator N, and a complete (by postulate) set of eigenvectors {|n>}, such that N |n> = n |n>, n >= 0.
It then turns out that you can write N = (a+) a and that these are ladder operators.
Now, it turns out also, that this system is 1-1 with a classical model, which is the 1-dimensional mechanical harmonic oscillator, but that's "a result after the fact".

 

[Anonym]

Now, it turns out also, that this system is 1-1 with a classical model, which is the 1-dimensional mechanical harmonic oscillator, but that's "a result after the fact".

May you be accurate just for the difference? Most close to the classical harmonic oscillator are the states which are eigenstates of the annihilation operator and not the eigenstates of the number operator. “Unfortunately”, they do not form the orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space. It is still open problem.

Regards, Dany.

 

[smallphi]

I want confirmation of two facts I gathered from this discussion:

1. Any hermitian operator in given Hilbert space has eigenvectors that form a complete basis of the space. Can someone refer me to a proof of that?

2. In QFT we quantize say a scalar field by saying that the ground state |0> is the state annihilated to zero by the annihilation operators of all modes. We don't have to prove that this state exists at all or is unique because we POSTULATE this is so effectively building the Hilbert space.

I once asked a professor 'How do we know the ground state (the vacuum) of the field exists?'. And he replied 'How do you know the ground state of harmonic oscillator exist?'.

 

[smallphi]

I want confirmation of two facts I gathered from this discussion:

1. Any hermitian operator in given Hilbert space has eigenvectors that form a complete basis of the space. Can someone refer me to a proof of that?

2. In QFT we quantize say a scalar field by saying that the ground state |0> is the state annihilated to zero by the annihilation operators of all modes. We don't have to prove that this state exists at all or is unique because we POSTULATE this is so effectively building the Hilbert space.

I once asked a professor 'How do we know the ground state (the vacuum) of the field exists?'. And he replied 'How do you know the ground state of harmonic oscillator exist?'.

 

[smallphi]

I want confirmation of two facts I gathered from this discussion:

1. Any hermitian operator in given Hilbert space has eigenvectors that form a complete basis of the space. Can someone refer me to a proof of that?

2. In QFT we quantize say a scalar field by saying that the ground state |0> is the state annihilated to zero by the annihilation operators of all modes. We don't have to prove that this state exists at all or is unique because we POSTULATE this is so effectively defining/building/constructing the Hilbert space.

I once asked a professor 'How do we know the ground state (the vacuum) of the scalar field exists?'. And he replied 'How do you know the ground state of harmonic oscillator exist?'.

 

[Fra]

Any hermitian operator in given Hilbert space has eigenvectors that form a complete basis of the space.

This is not the case, in general.

Like Vanesch mentioned you'd have to ask - what hilbert space?

OTOH, given a hermitian operator, it induces a minimal hilbert space where it's eigenfunctions are a complete basis. For proof, search for kolmogorov's dilation theorem in some functional analysis book.

But this doesn't mean there aren't bigger hilbert spaces, which your hermitian operator can't span.

Given a set of assumed commuting operators you can define a minimal hilbert space where the set of eigenfunctions is a complete base, in line with vanesch post.

This is math.

I personally think the interesting points (physical content) and the hardest part is to what accuracy these postulates/assumptions/axioms make real life easier or not. Clearly they are useful, but are they perfect? The problems of applying formalisms technical, and often complex, but usually readily solvable and provable. The harder parts is that you can't prove or disprove as easily. This is often I think the interesting parts.

/Fredrik

 

[Anonym]

In the creation/annihilation operator picture the Hilbert state of a quantum harmonic oscillator is spanned by the eigenstates |n> of the number operator.

I've never seen a proof that:

1. the ground state |0> is unique
2. the states |n> form a complete basis i.e. any state in that Hilbert space can be decomposed into them

Any references or explanations?

Hans de Vries in post #4 presented the complete answer to your original question. The rest is irrelevant to your original question.

Regards, Dany.

 

[Anonym]

I want confirmation of two facts I gathered from this discussion:

1. Any hermitian operator in given Hilbert space has eigenvectors that form a complete basis of the space. Can someone refer me to a proof of that?

D. Hilbert, Spectral Decomposition Theorem, R.Courant and D.Hilbert, Methoden der Mathematischen Physik, Berlin, (1931); J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Berlin, (1931).

2. In QFT we quantize say a scalar field by saying that the ground state |0> is the state annihilated to zero by the annihilation operators of all modes. We don't have to prove that this state exists at all or is unique because we POSTULATE this is so effectively defining/building/constructing the Hilbert space.

The accurate description of V.A. Fock second quantization procedure you may find in any textbook on QM and QFT.

I once asked a professor 'How do we know the ground state (the vacuum) of the scalar field exists?'. And he replied 'How do you know the ground state of harmonic oscillator exist?'

Find a professor that know QM and QFT, that is able to answer your questions and do not ask you questions.

Regards, Dany.

 

[olgranpappy]

P.S. you've never seen a proof that the ground state is unique in general (i.e., for *any* system, even fake pedegogical systems) because there is no proof. For example: Two perfectly isolated infinite square wells. Another more "realistic" example: the N-particle (N>1) groundstate of a *non-interacting* fermi gas.

 

[olgranpappy]

...on the otherhand, for an N-particle *non-interacting* bose gas the ground state is unique... because the ground state of one oscillator is unique (because it is *the* solution to a first order differential equation), and the ground state of N-particle bose gas occurs when all are in that single-particle ground state.

 

[smallphi]

A system of oscillators like bunch of particles in quadratic potential would have unique ground state because you can solve for the wave function in an already defined Hilbert space spanned by eigenstates of the position or momentum operators.

On the other hand, the EM field is also a 'bose gas' but the Hilbert space is not spanned in advance before you postulate the existence and uniqueness of the ground state. The Hamiltonian may look like bunch of 'oscillators' but you are missing the formal expressions of the creation and annihilation operators in terms of differential operators acting in some functional space like in the case of harmonic oscillator. Hence you can't solve for the ground state of each 'oscillator' and prove its unique. The only way would be to postulate it and see if that agrees with experiment.

 

[Anonym]

you are missing the formal expressions of the creation and annihilation operators in terms of differential operators acting in some functional space like in the case of harmonic oscillator. Hence you can't solve for the ground state of each 'oscillator' and prove its unique. The only way would be to postulate it and see if that agrees with experiment.

No. It is an intermediate step usually used before the adequate mathematical framework is found.

Regards, Dany.

 

[smallphi]

Anonym, I don't understand your post.

 

[Anonym]

I don't understand your post.

You can’t introduce the postulates arbitrarily in order to solve the particular problem. It is similar as in the history of CED. M.Faraday postulated closed lines of force to explain the experimentally observed behavior of the magnetic field. It led to the development of the vector algebra and the vector analysis which is the adequate mathematical framework for CED. Newton’s classical analysis was not adequate to that purpose.

By the way M. Faraday discovered the electrical charge quantization. I did not see the convincing demonstration of it even in U(2) electroweak phenomenological model but it is obviously the QED natural problem.

Regards, Dany.

P.S. The alternative way may be through the connection between the CED and QED as I mentioned in post #6.

 

[vanesch]

A system of oscillators like bunch of particles in quadratic potential would have unique ground state because you can solve for the wave function in an already defined Hilbert space spanned by eigenstates of the position or momentum operators.

On the other hand, the EM field is also a 'bose gas' but the Hilbert space is not spanned in advance before you postulate the existence and uniqueness of the ground state. The Hamiltonian may look like bunch of 'oscillators' but you are missing the formal expressions of the creation and annihilation operators in terms of differential operators acting in some functional space like in the case of harmonic oscillator. Hence you can't solve for the ground state of each 'oscillator' and prove its unique. The only way would be to postulate it and see if that agrees with experiment.

That's correct.

You want an example of a harmonic oscillator that has no unique ground state ?
Take a spin-1/2 particle in a harmonic potential with no spin term in the hamiltonian.

We now have TWO independent ground states, namely |0+> and |0->.

The whole creation and annihilation business works, and it is like the example in my earlier post:

If you start with ground state a |0+> + b |0->, you will end up in a |n+> + b |n-> after n creation operations.

So the CHOICE of having 1 ground state is a physical hypothesis for the model at hand.
In the case of a mechanical oscillator, it would come down to the hypothesis that the oscillator has
no extra degrees of freedom (internal degrees of freedom). Making the choice of several ground
states comes simply down to postulating extra degrees of freedom which are oscillator-independent.

 

[smallphi]

How exactly they hypothesis that the oscillator has no extra degree of freedom translates into math language?

I bumped on several occations on statements like 'the X and P operators are irreducible'.

I would like to see a proof of existence and uniqueness of ground state following from the mathematical statement that the system has no extra degree of freedom.

 

[olgranpappy]

...but you are missing the formal expressions of the creation and annihilation operators in terms of differential operators acting in some functional space like in the case of harmonic oscillator.

Let's put your system in a large box. Now, if you want the amplitude to find each of the N photons at a given point in the box, how do you find it?

 

[Anonym]

You want an example of a harmonic oscillator that has no unique ground state?

So the CHOICE of having 1 ground state is a physical hypothesis for the model at hand.

In the case of a mechanical oscillator, it would come down to the hypothesis that the oscillator has no extra degrees of freedom (internal degrees of freedom). Making the choice of several ground states comes simply down to postulating extra degrees of freedom which are oscillator-independent.

Your problem is that you are listening to yourself only. These are not a questions Smallphi asking (see above and below). Smallphi is math-ph., was born so (like Quantum River). This is another Galaxy for you. You apparently don’t able to understand that before “postulating extra degrees of freedom which are oscillator-independent” one should define the notion of internal degree of freedom (and it is already done in math-ph: C.N.Yang 50 years ago). However, I don’t want misinterpretation that you are master in that: We can’t work without physicists like you.

How exactly they hypothesis that the oscillator has no extra degree of freedom translates into math language?

I bumped on several occations on statements like 'the X and P operators are irreducible'.

I would like to see a proof of existence and uniqueness of ground state following from the mathematical statement that the system has no extra degree of freedom.

2. In QFT we quantize say a scalar field by saying that the ground state |0> is the state annihilated to zero by the annihilation operators of all modes. We don't have to prove that this state exists at all or is unique because we POSTULATE this is so effectively building the Hilbert space?

Smallphi, I already answered your questions. Read carefully J. von Neumann book and D.Hilbert paper around 1912 I guess if you need the origin. To understand better the situation, read E. Schrödinger, Die Naturwissenschaften, 48,807,(1935); 48,823,(1935); 48,844,(1935) (English tr. in W&Z). E. Schrödinger explain that even non-relativistic QM is intrinsically relativistic like CED because the problem of time operator. See also F.J. Dyson “Feynman’s proof of the Maxwell equations”, Am. J. Phys., 58, 209 (1990).

The Hilbert space is the mathematical language that uses the complex state vectors and the complex scalar products only. We have four numerical systems available: 1-dim real, 2-dim complex, 4-dim real quaternion and 8-dim real octonions, which allow 1, 3 and 7 relative phases correspondingly. That in turn allows defining the mathematical languages similar to the Hilbert space (Hilbert module). Since in general in order to construct Fock spaces you need to use the Kronecker products, the requirement that the scalar product belong to the same numerical system is unjustified.

Thus you end up with: four structures with the real, complex, quaternion and octonion state vectors with the real scalar product (dispersion free field theories; J. von Neumann: classical physics); complex, quaternion and octonion state vectors with the complex scalar product (quantum physics); quaternion and octonion state vectors with the quaternion scalar product (I don’t know what it is); octonion state vectors with the octonion scalar product (I have no idea what it is: Be Resheet).

Regards, Dany.

P.S. The only case known to me when you have 2-fold ground state in absence of local gauge interaction is in octonion QM with the complex scalar product.

P.P.S. I intentionally do not discuss with you the question: 'complete set of commuting observables' since I consider it the key question for formulation of consistent relativistic QM and I want to do that with my own hands.

 

[George Jones]

For a careful treatment (which some people consider overkill) of harmonic oscillators and free quantum fields in flat spacetime, you might want to look at chapters 2 and 3 in Wald's http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226870278/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

 

[Anonym]

For a careful treatment (which some people consider overkill) of harmonic oscillators and free quantum fields in flat spacetime, you might want to look at chapters 2 and 3 in Wald's Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics.

Thank you, I’ll do it. Did he explain the results of A. Einstein analysis of black body radiation curve? ("A man ought to read just as inclination leads him; for what he reads as a task will do him little good.").

Regards, Dany.

 

[Hans de Vries]

A system of oscillators like bunch of particles in quadratic potential would have unique ground state because you can solve for the wave function in an already defined Hilbert space spanned by eigenstates of the position or momentum operators.

On the other hand, the EM field is also a 'bose gas' but the Hilbert space is not spanned in advance before you postulate the existence and uniqueness of the ground state. The Hamiltonian may look like bunch of 'oscillators' but you are missing the formal expressions of the creation and annihilation operators in terms of differential operators acting in some functional space like in the case of harmonic oscillator. Hence you can't solve for the ground state of each 'oscillator' and prove its unique. The only way would be to postulate it and see if that agrees with experiment.

This threat is way to abstract and mixing up all kinds of things.
So, let’s try to handle this as simple as possible:
1) Canonical ('second') quantization is not a quantization of the wave-
function in space but that of phi(x,t) as an internal coordinate.

2) The form of the wave-function in space is always assumed to be a
sinusoidal plane wave.

3) Second quantization is intended to be an explanation why the vacuum
can only have 1, 2, 3, ... n of such sinusoidal plane waves, for each
frequency, representing 1, 2, 3, ...n particles of that frequency.
CANONICAL QUANTIZATION OF THE KLEIN GORDON FIELD
==========================================

Now we get to our harmonic oscillators. You can literally see them
immediately by looking at this picture:

http://chip-architect.com/physics/Klein_Gordon.jpg

This is a mechanical representation (with springs and masses) of the
one dimensional real Klein Gordon equation:

\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial t^2}\ =\ c^2\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2} - m^2 \psi

Where the horizontal axis is x and the vertical axis is psi. The wave-
functions of this mechanical system behave exactly as deBroglie waves,
including the phase speed of c^2/v.

The vertical springs c^2 determine the propagation speed and the
horizontal springs m^2 determine the mass of the particle. The vertical
springs make up an harmonic oscillator at each point in space.

Canonical quantization is now done by treating these harmonic oscillators
as quantum mechanical harmonic oscillators instead. The solutions
are the Gaussian Hermite functions which you can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

The creation operator repeatedly applied to the ground state H0 gives
H1, H2, H3, ... Hn. The annihilation operator does the opposite and goes
the other way H3, H2, H1, H0. Operating on H0 gives 0. The number
operator gives back the value of n. The ground state H0 is denoted by |0>

The energy level of n particles is given by:

E_n \ =\ \left( n+\frac{1}{2} \right)\ \hbar \omega

Which quantizes the number of particles that can exist at a certain
frequency.
CANONICAL QUANTIZATION OF THE DIRAC FIELD
====================================

This is not that much different. Not in the last place because all the
individual spinor components obey the Klein Gordon equation.
CANONICAL QUANTIZATION OF THE EM FIELD
==================================

This is more tricker. Peshkin & Schroeder doesn't even discuss it. We
see the problem if we consider that the field is mass-less. The vertical
springs m^2 in our image above disappear and there is no more
harmonic oscillator. So, we need something else to take over this
function instead.

The EM field can be described, considering gauge invariance, with four
equations:\partial^2_t A^\nu\ =\ \partial_x^2 A^\nu +\partial_y^2 A^\nu +\partial_z^2 A^\nu \ +\ \partial^\nu \left( \partial_\mu A^\mu \right)

Where each value of \nu = 0,1,2,3 gives us one of the four equations.
It is clear that the last term should take over the role that the mass had
in the Klein Gordon equation in one way or another. However, the conserved
current rule for the EM field gives us:

\partial_\mu A^\mu \ =\ \partial_t V + \partial_x A_x + \partial_y A_y + \partial_z A_z \ =\ 0

Under this condition it is not possible to do a second quantization of the
EM field. Now, Gupta and Bleuler came up with a less restrictive rule:

\partial_\mu A^\mu \ \neq\ 0, \qquad \mbox{but} \quad \partial_\mu A^{(+)\mu} |\psi \rangle \ =\ 0

The latter means that if we consider only positive frequency parts then
these operating on a field should have a zero effect. This is what made
it possible to do a second quantization of the EM field.that's it.

Now personally I'm not fully satisfied with this solution, because the
source of the EM field, The charge/current density is conserved.
That is:

\partial_\mu J^\mu \ =\ 0

And it is hard to see how this conserved current can give rise to a non-
conserved EM field, and worse: If the EM field is expressed as a plane
wave, going in the z-direction, for instance: (0,Ax,Ay,0), then all derivatives
in x and y are zero, and this also sets the last term to zero, the term we
need for second quantization, but OK. A good treatment of the EM field
can be found in:

Lewis H Ryder, Quantum Field Theory, chapter 4


Regards, Hans

 

[Anonym]

So, let’s try to handle this as simple as possible.

It is hard to say that it is first time I see that consideration. However, it is first time that I read your post so simple and clear. And why you did not consider Proca eqs. also?

Regards, Dany.

 

[smallphi]

For a careful treatment (which some people consider overkill) of harmonic oscillators and free quantum fields in flat spacetime, you might want to look at chapters 2 and 3 in Wald's http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226870278/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

I've read the chapters. When quantizing the free scalar field in Minkowski, Wald simply postulates the existence of the 'vacuum' state during construction of the Fock space from the one-particle Hilbert space in Appendix A.2.

 

[smallphi]

That's correct.

You want an example of a harmonic oscillator that has no unique ground state ?
Take a spin-1/2 particle in a harmonic potential with no spin term in the hamiltonian.

We now have TWO independent ground states, namely |0+> and |0->.

The whole creation and annihilation business works, and it is like the example in my earlier post:

If you start with ground state a |0+> + b |0->, you will end up in a |n+> + b |n-> after n creation operations.

So the CHOICE of having 1 ground state is a physical hypothesis for the model at hand.
In the case of a mechanical oscillator, it would come down to the hypothesis that the oscillator has
no extra degrees of freedom (internal degrees of freedom). Making the choice of several ground
states comes simply down to postulating extra degrees of freedom which are oscillator-independent.

Thanks for the example by the way.

 

[vanesch]

Your problem is that you are listening to yourself only. These are not a questions Smallphi asking (see above and below). Smallphi is math-ph., was born so (like Quantum River). This is another Galaxy for you. You apparently don’t able to understand that before “postulating extra degrees of freedom which are oscillator-independent” one should define the notion of internal degree of freedom (and it is already done in math-ph: C.N.Yang 50 years ago). However, I don’t want misinterpretation that you are master in that: We can’t work without physicists like you.

There is no need to become insulting.


As to what smallphi is asking, have a look at the OP:

In the creation/annihilation operator picture the Hilbert state of a quantum harmonic oscillator is spanned by the eigenstates |n> of the number operator.

I've never seen a proof that:

1. the ground state |0> is unique
2. the states |n> form a complete basis i.e. any state in that Hilbert space can be decomposed into them

Any references or explanations?

What comes to mind is the creation/annihilation structure, so there is an a+ and an a, there is at least one vector in the hilbert space on which these operators act, and (a a+) has the natural numbers as eigenvalues. This is what I personally understand if one talks to me about "he creation/annihilation operator picture the Hilbert state of a quantum harmonic oscillator is spanned by the eigenstates |n> of the number operator".
I'm not thinking about any particular physical model, such as a mass on a spring, or a field mode, or anything.

From these hypotheses alone, one cannot prove that the ground state is unique. The simplest proof is by giving a specific physical example, which is what I did: a spin-1/2 particle on a spring. It has a 2-fold degenerate ground state. For an spin-n particle on a spring, I'd have a (2n+1)-fold degenerate ground state for the number operator.
Of course, if one takes on a specific physical model, such as a mass on a spring, one can use the hilbert space constructed for that model, and the specific interpretation of the a and a+ in that model, to prove, for that specific example, that the ground state is unique, or degenerate. But one then gave just a specific example of a more abstract structure.

You can just as well write down the algebraic axioms of a field, and then ask whether there exists a complete ordering relation on that field (because you're thinking of the real numbers). But from only the axioms of a field, you cannot. You can, if you think of specific examples of a field.

 

[vanesch]

I've read the chapters. When quantizing the free scalar field in Minkowski, Wald simply postulates the existence of the 'vacuum' state during construction of the Fock space from the one-particle Hilbert space in Appendix A.2.

That's correct, and actually, one could just as well postulate, say, 5 independent vacuum states. You would then have a 5-fold Fock space, and to each n-particle state, you'd add an index running from 1 to 5. This is why I say that starting with a unique ground state is a postulate. No matter if others insult me for that or not

 

[Anonym]

There is no need to become insulting.

I enjoy discussions with you more than half year; you help me understand what I try to understand and study. I never insulted you and I never insulted anybody in PF.

I do not participate in discussions where more then single particle is considered. I do not know and understand enough the physics of single particle system and not able to go further. Sometimes you introduce balagan into discussion and I try to keep you focused on the original problem. For example:

In the creation/annihilation operator picture the Hilbert state of a quantum harmonic oscillator is spanned by the eigenstates |n> of the number operator.

1.Single oscillator, not oscillators.
2.Quantum oscillator, not semi classical and not classical.
3.Hilbert space and not some ill-defined extension (W. Pauli C2 phenomenological invention of spin is consistent with the experiment but brake the mathematical structure of Hilbert spaces, it is not Hilbert space anymore; Dirac C4 even worse). There is no other experimentally confirmed way to introduce the fermions spin.

This session is about Foundations of Quantum Theory. You behave as elephant in glass house; the only thing I ask you to be more careful and delicate.

From these hypotheses alone, one cannot prove that the ground state is unique.

You consider the different physical system: single particle with ½ spin. One can’t compare apples with oranges.

For an spin-n particle on a spring, I'd have a (2n+1)-fold degenerate ground state for the number operator.

There is no such animal in nature.

Regards, Dany.

P.S. I would like to attract your attention to the discussion in “HUP and Particle Accelerators”. To justify my statement above, I would appreciate to read your comment.

 

[smallphi]

Actually vanesch correctly understands what my real question is.

In my first post I started with the regular harmonic oscillator of QM and we clarified that the uniqueness of the ground state for that system is proven by a simple check if the corresponding diff. equation a|0> = 0 has such a solution. There were opinions that the completeness of the |n> basis is due to the Hermicity of the number operator. I've seen proof of the completeness and it relies on the fact that the X and P operators are irreducible in H not that the number operator is Hermitian. Anyways that is not important.

After that I shifted the discussion to the actual question I had in mind when I started this thread - quantization of scalar field in QFT. I tried to use the QM oscillator as a primordial example, forgetting that its Hilbert space is uniqely fixed and hence it is not equivalent to the question I had in mind.

So let's focus on quantization of scalar field in QFT. Given is the standard action of the field. The question is still:

1. Can it be proven that the state |0> annihilated by the anihilation operators of all modes exists and is unique in the Fock space.

2. Can it be proven that the vectors |0> and a_k^+|0> for all k's span the one particle Hilbert space.

Note that Wald defines the one particle Hilbert space as the space of positive energy solutions of the classical wave equation for the scalar so it is already fixed. It's not clear if that fixes somehow the action of the operators in that space.

 

[smallphi]

I guess the question for the scalar field in QFT is connected to the following question:

Given:
Hamiltonian operator H = \frac{p^2}{2}+\frac{\omega^2 x^2}{2}
The commutator [x,p]=i \hbar
The Hilbert space is defined to be all square integrabe functions of one real variable.

NOTHING ELSE IS ASSUMED!

Can it be proven that in that space the position and momentum operators must have their usual expressions x and -i hbar d/dx ?

If not, what are the extra assumptions that will fix the form of the operators in that Hilbert space?

 

[Anonym]

5. This is why I say that starting with a unique ground state is a postulate. No matter if others insult me for that or not.

5 is the natural number. Also it is the number of principal physical postulates.

Let me add something. Obviously, there is no intention here to insult anybody. But last time you somehow succeed to involve me into the philosophical discussions. And really there is one question that I agree to discuss since it is constructive.

Let consider this thread as a model. Smallphi started with the simple and clearly defined question. There exists the clear and unique answer to that question (Hans de Vries, post #4). So, what we study from that?

We go now to the more complicated case. Let say, no one know the answer. So, what is expected? One way: since in the previous case I found the unique answer, it is reasonable to try finding the unique and clear answer also in more complicated case (QED, QCD, QG, etc). Now, you came with the opposite attitude. Using all possible arguments, legal and illegal, legitimate and not legitimate you try to prove only one statement: the previous case was also not unique and clear. It is illusion that Smallphi learn something, Smallphi do not know anything, and will know nothing. It is called agnosticism and you consistently present that POV in every post you wrote.

The only questions I have: why you choose science in general and physics in particular to be your profession? And why you consider that it is your duty to convince a newcomer that the study physics is meaningless?

After that I shifted the discussion to the actual question I had in mind when I started this thread - quantization of scalar field in QFT. I tried to use the QM oscillator as a primordial example, forgetting that its Hilbert space is uniqely fixed and hence it is not equivalent to the question I had in mind.

You forget that at low energy there is no scalar elementary particles (scalar fields). The answer to your actual question is NO. Why? I hope that Higgs boson story will give the answer. I am not interesting in investigation of no go statements. As I said above, I am interesting with Yang bosons.

Regards, Dany.

P.S. Vanesch, perhaps you intuitively looking for the justification of the statistical interpretation of QM on the level of the single particle system. You try to catch fata morgana, illusion. There is no such animal in nature.

 

[smallphi]

You forget that at low energy there is no scalar elementary particles (scalar fields). The answer to your actual question is NO. Why? I hope that Higgs boson story will give the answer. I am not interesting in investigation of no go statements. As I said above, I am interesting with Yang bosons.

I am trying to study the question in the simplest possible environment, that's why I started with HO and went to quantization of scalar field.

Cosmology, althought quite speculative, is full of quantization of scalar fields.

The quantization of other fields starts with the same assumtion about unique vacuum state and complete basis only the details are different. If you don't like the question for scalar field, then answer it for other fields with all the possible extra complications.

 

[Anonym]

I am trying to study the question in the simplest possible environment, that's why I started with HO and went to quantization of scalar field.

Cosmology, althought quite speculative, is full of quantization of scalar fields.

The quantization of other fields starts with the same assumtion about unique vacuum state and complete basis only the details are different. If you don't like the question for scalar field, then answer it for other fields with all the possible extra complications.

Sure, I’ll try. My remark intended to attract your attention that it is probably impossible to do for the scalar fields. The possible extra complications of spin 1 fields may turn out to be the simplifications.

Regards, Dany.

 

[vanesch]

Let consider this thread as a model. Smallphi started with the simple and clearly defined question. There exists the clear and unique answer to that question (Hans de Vries, post #4). So, what we study from that?

I was taking on a mathematical approach, because the question of proof was posed, and we started from different axiomatic bases. If you talk about the "one-dimensional mechanical harmonic oscillator", that means that you already have introduced a lot of postulates. One is for instance that the system is a classical system with a classical configuration space that follows the usual quantization rules. In other words, you have a classical configuration space, which consists in this case of the real line, and which we describe, say, with the variable "x" which we call "position". We then go on introducing the canonically conjugate variable p, and use the standard rules of quantization of a classical system to obtain a quantum system. You express your hamiltonian inspired by the classical hamiltonian and so on. As such, the quantum system is entirely defined starting from the classical system and the "quantization rules". The question of whether there is a unique ground state has not much to do with the fact that it is a harmonic oscillator.

However, if you talk about the "quantum-mechanical oscillator" you don't have a particular model in mind, you just have an abstract system in mind with a number operator and ladder operators. This is the system I thought (and still think) the OP was talking about. It doesn't need to have any physical interpretation, it is just an axiomatic system. Now, as I said previously, this is like distilling the axiomatic structure of an algebraic field out of usual real-number algebra (you know, you have a set with 2 operations, each operation gives you a commutative group (when you exclude the unit element of the first group from the second), and you have distributivity).
With only this axiomatic structure of a "harmonic oscillator" you cannot prove that there is a unique ground state. The best illustration is a counter example, that was my spin-1/2 particle in a mechanical oscillator.
If you have an example structure which satisfies all the postulated axioms, and it doesn't satisfy the conjectured theorem, then that theorem cannot be deduced from the axiomatic structure.
It is not because in another example, the theorem is right, that this means that it is derivable from the axiom set.

So the point is: *purely* from the axiomatic structure of the abstract harmonic oscillator, one cannot derive that the ground state is unique. This is my point.

Now, by going to a specific case, or by adding axioms (that's in fact the same!), you CAN of course arrive at cases where you can demonstrate that the ground state is unique. An example is indeed the case of the 1-dimensional mechanical oscillator of a point particle. But that was not the question. The question was: can one PROVE, starting from the axioms of an ABSTRACT harmonic oscillator, that a unique ground state exists. The answer is: no one cannot prove that. And the proof of that statement is a counter example.

We go now to the more complicated case. Let say, no one know the answer. So, what is expected? One way: since in the previous case I found the unique answer, it is reasonable to try finding the unique and clear answer also in more complicated case (QED, QCD, QG, etc). Now, you came with the opposite attitude. Using all possible arguments, legal and illegal, legitimate and not legitimate you try to prove only one statement: the previous case was also not unique and clear. It is illusion that Smallphi learn something, Smallphi do not know anything, and will know nothing. It is called agnosticism and you consistently present that POV in every post you wrote.

I wasn't agnostic about the claim! I clearly stated that from the axioms of an abstract harmonic oscillator, one cannot derive that the ground state is unique, and if one wants a unique ground state, one will have to postulate something else. Or one postulates directly that the ground state is unique, or one uses another model in which one can embed a harmonic oscillator. If in that other model, one can derive that the ground state is unique, well then so be it. But I have the *freedom* not to do so, and still use an abstract harmonic oscillator. Whether that is a physically useful thing to do or not doesn't matter here. What matters is that the harmonic oscillator structure is not incompatible with degenerate ground states.

The only questions I have: why you choose science in general and physics in particular to be your profession? And why you consider that it is your duty to convince a newcomer that the study physics is meaningless?

It is always good to know what are the logical relationships between the different postulates and results one obtains. If not, one locks oneself up into a kind of religion where absolute truths have been hammered in stone. A typical example is non-Euclidean geometry. It is not because everybody "knew" that the 5th postulate was "true" that it was meaningless to question it and to explore its logical relations to other statements.

The study of physics, or the study of mathematics, or any study is the study of relationships between statements. It is not because in summer the days are longer, and hot things usually expand, that it is because the days are hot that they expanded. It is not because we think at a certain moment that two statements are true that you can necessarily derive one from the other. And you always have to keep in mind that "absolute truth" is a fata morgana

But it is not because we cannot know anything with absolute truth that we must give up trying to think about it. It is not because you don't know what tomorrow will bring that you must not live tomorrow.

P.S. Vanesch, perhaps you intuitively looking for the justification of the statistical interpretation of QM on the level of the single particle system. You try to catch fata morgana, illusion. There is no such animal in nature.

How do you know with such certainty ?
But this was not the discussion here. It was a purely mathematical discussion: what properties, within an axiomatic system, can be derived from what axiom set.

 

[Anonym]

I consider your post beautiful. I consider your duty to write your posts always at the same level which now has the empirical justification. However I consider also your duty to emphasize that neither mathematics nor mathematical physics and nor theoretical physics is the area of your professional competence, that you are the experimentalist. And I know only three examples of the physicist that had the professional level of competence in both: G.Galilei, I. Newton and E. Fermi.

I was taking on a mathematical approach, because the question of proof was posed, and we started from different axiomatic bases. If you talk about the "one-dimensional mechanical harmonic oscillator", that means that you already have introduced a lot of postulates. One is for instance that the system is a classical system with a classical configuration space that follows the usual quantization rules. In other words, you have a classical configuration space, which consists in this case of the real line, and which we describe, say, with the variable "x" which we call "position". We then go on introducing the canonically conjugate variable p, and use the standard rules of quantization of a classical system to obtain a quantum system. You express your hamiltonian inspired by the classical hamiltonian and so on. As such, the quantum system is entirely defined starting from the classical system and the "quantization rules". The question of whether there is a unique ground state has not much to do with the fact that it is a harmonic oscillator.

However, if you talk about the "quantum-mechanical oscillator" you don't have a particular model in mind, you just have an abstract system in mind with a number operator and ladder operators. This is the system I thought (and still think) the OP was talking about. It doesn't need to have any physical interpretation, it is just an axiomatic system. Now, as I said previously, this is like distilling the axiomatic structure of an algebraic field out of usual real-number algebra (you know, you have a set with 2 operations, each operation gives you a commutative group (when you exclude the unit element of the first group from the second), and you have distributivity).
With only this axiomatic structure of a "harmonic oscillator" you cannot prove that there is a unique ground state. The best illustration is a counter example, that was my spin-1/2 particle in a mechanical oscillator.
If you have an example structure which satisfies all the postulated axioms, and it doesn't satisfy the conjectured theorem, then that theorem cannot be deduced from the axiomatic structure.
It is not because in another example, the theorem is right, that this means that it is derivable from the axiom set.

So the point is: *purely* from the axiomatic structure of the abstract harmonic oscillator, one cannot derive that the ground state is unique. This is my point.

“one cannot derive that the ground state is unique.” You should write:” I cannot derive that the ground state is unique.”

I did not understand even one single statement and certainly this is not what I have in my mind. But it is not a matter. You present your POV and I presented mine above. There are others. You cannot convince me and I do not try to convince you. I am only sensitive to the stupid propaganda. The only statement that I agree with you is:” "absolute truth" is a fata morgana By the way, the line is described by x in mathematics, in physics it is described by the acceleration.

A typical example is non-Euclidean geometry. It is not because everybody "knew" that the 5th postulate was "true" that it was meaningless to question it and to explore its logical relations to other statements.

I do not understand what you say and what you want to say. Please provide your formulation of the 5th postulate of the Geometry.

Regards, Dany.

P.S. I would like to attract your attention to the discussion in “HUP and Particle Accelerators”. I would appreciate to read your comment. It is strictly your area of competence and I need your help.

 

[Careful]

It is always good to know what are the logical relationships between the different postulates and results one obtains. If not, one locks oneself up into a kind of religion where absolute truths have been hammered in stone. A typical example is non-Euclidean geometry. It is not because everybody "knew" that the 5th postulate was "true" that it was meaningless to question it and to explore its logical relations to other statements.

The study of physics, or the study of mathematics, or any study is the study of relationships between statements. It is not because in summer the days are longer, and hot things usually expand, that it is because the days are hot that they expanded. It is not because we think at a certain moment that two statements are true that you can necessarily derive one from the other. And you always have to keep in mind that "absolute truth" is a fata morgana

But it is not because we cannot know anything with absolute truth that we must give up trying to think about it. It is not because you don't know what tomorrow will bring that you must not live tomorrow.



How do you know with such certainty ?
But this was not the discussion here. It was a purely mathematical discussion: what properties, within an axiomatic system, can be derived from what axiom set.

Hi Patrick, if you consider logical positivism to be the statement : ``all true things are measured through experiment'' then you (actually Bertrand Russel was the first to notice it) arrive at a contradiction because the statement itself isn't measurable. That is why Bohr and Heisenberg had to define the ``subjective truth'', some can live with it, others can't.

Cheers,

Careful

 

[Anonym]

You cannot discuss physics without taking into account special relativity, that is like going to restaurant and eat with bare hands (which might still be a habit in some parts of the world).

Hi, Careful

I think I made some progress in my understanding of the relativistic QM. I hope invite you to our restaurant in the near future. However as you may see above I remained poor mind.

By the way, the statement itself is easily measurable, the content is not measurable(C.E.Shannon).

Regards, Dany.

 

[Careful]

Hi, Careful
By the way, the statement itself is easily measurable, the content is not measurable(C.E.Shannon).

Regards, Dany.

Ok, fair enough

 

[vanesch]

“one cannot derive that the ground state is unique.” You should write:” I cannot derive that the ground state is unique.”

This is starting to become ridiculous. The statement "one cannot derive that the ground state is unique" is proven in my posts. As such it is not a statement of incompetence, but a statement of impossibility.

(btw, the proof of that statement is by counter example: I set up a simple example which satisfies the proposed axioms for the harmonic oscillator, and which has a degenerate ground state. As such, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find a proof that such an example cannot exist! (which is exactly the claim that "unique ground state" follows from the axioms of the harmonic oscillator))

I did not understand even one single statement and certainly this is not what I have in my mind. But it is not a matter.

It does. If you cannot follow the simple mathematical reasoning I presented in previous posts, then I do not think you are qualified to criticize what I'm qualified to do. Although I am indeed an experimentalist (but not only, I have other degrees too, and I'm preparing others), even an experimentalist knows some mathematics, and the level needed here is what every physicist should know.

To repeat, the starting axioms were those of the "harmonic oscillator", which are:

You have a hilbert space.
1) In that hilbert space, there is a hermitean operator N, which has only whole-number eigenvalues.
2) That operator N = (a+) a, where a+ and a are two operators defined over the space, which are each other's hermitean conjugate and which have the property that:
3a)If | n > is an eigenvector of N with eigenvalue n (integer), then a+ | n > is an eigenvector of N with eigenvalue n+1.
3b)If | n > is an eigenvector of N with eigenvalue n (integer), then a | n > is an eigenvector of N with eigenvalue n - 1 (or is the 0 vector)

(an alternative to the axioms 3a and 3b is to state the commutation relations between N, a and a+)

That's it. These are the axioms one starts with. They are the axioms of the quantum-mechanical harmonic oscillator.

theorem 1:
One can easily prove that n is limited to the positive integers:
Indeed, n = < n | N | n > = (< n | a+) (a | n > ) = | a |n> |^2. So n is the norm of a vector in hilbert space, and must hence be a positive number. It was already an integer (axiom 1), so it must be a positive integer QED.

theorem 2:
All positive integers appear as eigenvalues of N (and not only some).
The proof is again based upon the relation n = ( < n | a+ ) (a | n >), from which it follows that
a |n> = (phase) sqrt(n) |n - 1>
and from which it also follows that
a+ | n > = (phase) sqrt(n+1) |n+1>.

Imagine that the positive integer m doesn't appear in the list of eigenvalues, and that the number k does. Assume k < m for starters. So there exists a vector | k > with eigenvalue k under N. Apply a+, we find a non-zero vector |k+1>. Apply a+ again. We find an eigenvector k+2... Do this m-k times. We find a non-zero vector |k + m - k > with eigenvalue m. So m was, after all, an eigenvalue of N.
Same argument if k > m: we apply a (k - m) times, and we again arrive at a non-zero eigenvector of N with eigenvalue m. So no positive integer m exists which is not an eigenvalue of N. QED.

definition:
we call a *ground state* an eigenvector of N with eigenvalue 0.

theorem 3:
There exists a ground state.
Apply theorem 2 up to eigenvalue 1. There exists hence an eigenvector |1> of N, with eigenvalue 1. Apply a. a | 1 > = 1 |0>, a non-zero vector. Hence there exists a vector |0> with eigenvalue 0 of N. QED.

FALSE theorem 4:
the ground state is necessarily unique.

This cannot be derived from the above axioms. Proof by counter example.

I do not understand what you say and what you want to say. Please provide your formulation of the 5th postulate of the Geometry.

Someone who doesn't know what is the 5th postulate of Euclidean geometry, the 2000 years of looking for a proof of it from the 4 others, and the final realisation that it is an independent axiom, and can hence be altered, which gave rise to the whole class of non-Euclidean geometries, tells me that I have no qualifications to do some maths ?
For your information, the 5th postulate is simply:
"given a line and a point not on the line, there is one and only one line that can be constructed which contains said point, and which is parallel with the given line"
(or equivalent formulations)

 

[olgranpappy]

This is starting to become ridiculous.

Yeah. These threads seem to have a way of dragging on...
Cheers.

 

[Anonym]

If you talk about the "one-dimensional mechanical harmonic oscillator", that means that you already have introduced a lot of postulates. One is for instance that the system is a classical system with a classical configuration space that follows the usual quantization rules. In other words, you have a classical configuration space, which consists in this case of the real line, and which we describe, say, with the variable "x" which we call "position". We then go on introducing the canonically conjugate variable p, and use the standard rules of quantization of a classical system to obtain a quantum system. You express your hamiltonian inspired by the classical hamiltonian and so on. As such, the quantum system is entirely defined starting from the classical system and the "quantization rules".

You are not making distinction between the mathematics and the physics. If you define trajectory as set of positions, you already know everything and you don’t need momentum, you do not need the notion of the canonically conjugated variables and so on. You do not need the analytical mechanics. Equally well you may define the real line through the 10th derivative of x. Then you need additive constants to define it uniquely. You may choose (postulate using your language) the funny subset of the Fibonacci numbers and call it the “physical model”. However the physics is only what is defined by Newton/Hamilton equations. They followed from the principle of the Least Action which is the Principal Physical Postulate.

This is starting to become ridiculous.

Yes. Your “axiomatic” approach I consider ridiculous (not only in this session).

For your information, the 5th postulate is simply:
"given a line and a point not on the line, there is one and only one line that can be constructed which contains said point, and which is parallel with the given line"

The 5th postulate is the definition of the parallel. You provide the classical example of the circular logic.In addition, if so, how you call that:

Consider (using auxiliary definitions introduced previously) line and a point outside that line. There exists at least one line which contains that point and do not contains any point that belong to the original line.

As I mentioned above, this session is about Foundations of Quantum Theory. I suggest reading the book written by top expert in the Foundations of Physics where he discusses the questions that you like very much to consider:

J.M.Jauch, Are Quanta Real?, Indiana University Press, (1973).

After that I hope you will be qualified to criticize what you are qualified to do.

Regards, Dany.

P.S. I identify that you in the martial mood. There is no Sticky: Forum Rules in Beyond the Standard Model sub-forum. I consider that it must be there.