Expectation values of unbounded operator

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of expectation values of unbounded operators within the framework of rigged Hilbert spaces. The author of the referenced article asserts that the domain of an unbounded operator A, denoted as 𝓓(A), does not remain invariant under the action of A, leading to ill-defined expectation values across the entire Hilbert space 𝓗. A participant clarifies that while ψ = Aφ may not belong to 𝓓(A), it still resides in 𝓗, suggesting that expectation values could be well-defined under certain conditions, particularly for .

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of rigged Hilbert spaces
  • Knowledge of unbounded operators in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with expectation values in quantum theory
  • Basic concepts of square integrable functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of rigged Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the implications of unbounded operators on observable quantities
  • Research the mathematical framework of expectation values for unbounded operators
  • Examine the role of domains in operator theory, particularly 𝓓(A)
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, mathematicians specializing in functional analysis, and students studying operator theory will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics.

Ravi Mohan
Messages
195
Reaction score
21
I am reading an intriguing article on rigged Hilbert space
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502053

On page 8, the author describes the need for rigged Hilbert space. For that, he considers an unbounded operator [itex]A[/itex], corresponding to some observable in space of square integrable functions [itex]\mathcal{H}[/itex], with the domain [itex]\mathcal{D}(A)[/itex]. The author states that in general, [itex]\mathcal{D}(A)[/itex] does not remain invariant under the action of [itex]A[/itex].

Now the author claims that such non-invariance makes expectation values ill-defined on the whole Hilbert space [itex]\mathcal{H}[/itex].

I am not able to understand the claim.

Let us consider [itex]\phi\in\mathcal{D}(A)[/itex]. Due to invariance, [itex]\psi=A\phi[/itex] may not belong to [itex]\mathcal{D}(A)[/itex], but it remains in [itex]\mathcal{H}[/itex]. Thus the expectation value [itex](\phi,A\phi)=(\phi,\psi)[/itex] should be well defined (or am I doing something wrong?).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are right. I suppose he means expectation values of ##A^2## as appearing in the next equation.
 
Thank you for clearing that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K