Hilbert Space,Dirac Notation,and some other stuff

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ed Quanta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hilbert
Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
Ok, so I am a little unsure of how to apply these new concepts I am learning.
Here is a question.

The function g(x)=x(x-a)e^ikx is in a certain Hilbert space
where the finite norm squared equals the integral of the product of Psi's complex conjugate and Psi (dx) is less than infinity.

I must calculate the coefficients of expansion (an) of this function in the series

Psi(x)=summation of n=1 to infinity of (an*(Psi n(x))) where Psi n is the set of basis functions Psi n=(sqrt(2/a))sin(n*pi*x/a)

I am not sure how to do this exactly. If I am unclear, please do tell me and I shall write some more. Peace, and thanks a lot dudes.


Oh by the way, here Psi(x)=g(x) if that wasn't made obvious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The great thing about Hilbert spaces, is that it the same as ordinary vector spaces ! Except that of course, the dimension is allowed to be (countable) infinite, and the scalar product is slightly more involved.

So everything i will write is very easy :
\Psi(x)=\sum_n a_n \Psi_n(x)
you take the scalar product and use orthonormality :
\langle\Psi_n(x)|\Psi(x)\rangle=\sum_m a_m \langle\Psi_n(x)|\Psi_m(x) \rangle=\sum_m a_m \delta^m_n=a_n

a_n = \int dx\Psi_n^*(x)\Psi(x)

At this point I wonder : is it not g(x)=\theta[x(x-a)]e^{\imath k x} ?
 
Actually I think you can have uncountably many dimensions too - l2, the set of square summable sequences, is the model for a countable-dimension Hilbert space, whereas L2, the set of measurable Lebesque-square-integrable functions is the model for uncountable-dimension Hilbert spaces. Since in QM we work in subspaces of L2, we're usually talking uncountably many dimensions.

In particular, since the expansion in terms of sin(kx) has k in the reals, there is an uncountably infinite number of basis elements.

Of course, justifying L2 as a Hilbert space is a graduate course in measure theory all in itself, so most of the time we just shrug our shoulders and agree that 'stuff works'. Still, it's an uncountable amount of stuff :wink:

Kane
 
Of course (since I should try to actually be relevant for once) in bound-state problems with discrete eigenvalues, as above, where the basis elements are of the form:

sin(n*Pi*x/a)

you get a countable (either infinite or not depending on the potential) number of basis elements making up the bound state space.

:blushing:

Kane
 
Now you were not irrelevant at all. Thank you for the precision. I remembered only that in the case of uncountable-dimension things are much more difficult in theory, but then only mathematicians care. The problem is to make the Hilbert space complete, you have to take the equivalent classes. Anyway, thank you for refreshing my memory. :smile:
 
humanino said:
At this point I wonder : is it not g(x)=\theta[x(x-a)]e^{\imath k x} ?
I see what you did, now do I just integrate the product of the complex conjugate of basis functions (or just the basis functions because they equal their complex conjugate) Psi m= square root(2/a)sin(m*pi*x/a) and g(x) over the region from 0 to a?
 
Yes, you have to do the integration, depending on which is the right definition of g(x). I did not do it, I was too lazzy to compute and write :redface: The basis functions are real, you can ignore the hermitean conjugate in this case, I was illustrating the general power of the formalism.

Ed, if you want to use latex, you can click on the formula to see the code, or/and train and ask questions [thread=8997]here[/thread] if you please to use it of course.
 
Kane O'Donnell said:
Actually I think you can have uncountably many dimensions too

I'm not sure it is still called a Hilbert space in that case. After all, I thought a Hilbert space had to be Hausdorff-separable, and that implies, if my old memory serves well, the existence of countable bases. Anyways, L2 is countable, because it is the set of equivalence classes of functions which differ by a function which is non-zero only on a carrier of measure zero ; otherwise the inproduct wouldn't be positive definite.

cheers,
Patrick.
 
I think that physicists tend to use Hilbert space to mean one that is separable, while a general Hilbert space admits an uncountable number of vectors in a basis.
 
  • #10
Lonewolf said:
I think that physicists tend to use Hilbert space to mean one that is separable, while a general Hilbert space admits an uncountable number of vectors in a basis.

In my book "Introduction to Hilbert Space" by Sterling K. Berberian,

A pre-Hilbert space is a vector space over C equipped with a positive definite inproduct (and hence a metric) ;

and it is called a Hilbert space if on top of that it is Cauchy-complete (every cauchy sequence converges).

Finally a "classical Hilbert space" is separable (and countably infinite dimensional).
All classical Hilbert spaces are isomorphic.

You are right. Moreover, I was wrong saying that the separability followed in L2 from the definition of the in-product.

cheers,
patrick.
 
  • #11
Yep, all Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional (even if physicists sometimes lazily make them seem like they are finite). If they don't have a countable basis, there is not much to do, other than stare at the nice, completely useless spectral mess.
 
  • #12
Haelfix said:
stare at the nice, completely useless spectral mess.
:smile:
I thought I remembered something like that.
Thank you Haelfix !
 
  • #13
vanesch said:
In my book "Introduction to Hilbert Space" by Sterling K. Berberian,

A pre-Hilbert space is a vector space over C equipped with a positive definite inproduct (and hence a metric) ;

and it is called a Hilbert space if on top of that it is Cauchy-complete (every cauchy sequence converges).

Finally a "classical Hilbert space" is separable (and countably infinite dimensional).
All classical Hilbert spaces are isomorphic.

You are right. Moreover, I was wrong saying that the separability followed in L2 from the definition of the in-product.

cheers,
patrick.

Patrick, what is the definition of separable for Hilbert spaces? Is it the same as the topological definition of separable? I had always thought so, but some of the comments in the LQG controversy suggested otherwise.
 
  • #14
Separable Hilbert spaces are indeed separable in the sense of topological and metric spaces, with topology induced from the inner product. The Hilbert space needs only an orthonormal basis to be separable, or equivalently for all (finite or infinite) sequences xk, if there exists a z in the Hilbert space such that (z, xk) = 0, z is necessarily the zero vector.

Are the said comments online anywhere that you could provide a link to, since I'm pretty confident that it's topologically separable?
 
  • #15
According to wikipedia and my memory, a Hilbert space is separable if and only if it has a countable orthonormal basis. That is also what Haelfix meant I guessed.
 
  • #16
Haelfix said:
Yep, all Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional...

Is that really true? How about Rn with the inner product as the ordinary scalar product? We know it's complete, since every Cauchy sequence converges with the induced metric, but Rn is finite dimensional?
 
  • #17
You are rght Lonewolf, it is obviously not true that all Hilbert space are infinite dimensional. That was a misattention I guess.
 
  • #18
wavelets ?

I have been wondering for a while about this : Hilbert spaces notably "serve to clarify and generalize the concept of Fourier expansion [and] certain linear transformations such as the Fourier transform" (wikipedia again) and Healfix was not totally wrong when he said we physicists are sometimes lazzy with the mathematical available tools, we tend to stick to the ones we are used to. So, what would be wrong if instead of decomposing out operators in an harmonic fashion, we used wavelets ? I could not investigate this enough, because I do not handle those well yet, but my thoughts have been triggered by the fact that, wavelets are especially well-suited for two purposes : signals exhibiting a beginning and an end, which is obviously not the case for plane waves ; and signals having a rich content in scales. That is exactly the case of our fields : they are physical fields and "Quantum field theory arose out of our need to describe the ephemeral nature of life" (Zee again). Besides, renormalization is supposed to take care of this scale problem of the fields, whose content blow up at small distances. As discussed in the middle of [thread=44213]this[/thread] recent thread, which unfortunately diverged since then, the fluctuations at small distances might be physical. That could be smoothly taken care by suitable wavelets.

So I guess there is an obvious flaw with not using plane waves, and the following answers will probably try to demonstrate that there is no way out of harmonic analysis. I would rather receive arguments against wavelets, that for plane waves. Anyway, if it inspires you any thought or comment, I would be glad. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
If this an help, the book "Theory of linear operators in Hilbert space", Volume I, N.Akhiezer, english edition, says (literally):
"A Hilbert space H is an infinite dimensional inner product space which
is a complete metric space with respect to the metric generated by the inner product"
 
Last edited:
  • #20
I guess the infinite-dimensional business must be a physicist thing...
 
  • #21
meteor said:
If this an help, the book "Theory of linear operators in Hilbert space", Volume I, N.Akhiezer, english edition, says (literally):
"A Hilbert space H is an infinite dimensional inner product space which
is a complete metric space with respect to the metric generated by the inner product"

Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics Vol. 1 by Byron and Fuller describes a Hilbert space as a 'complete inner product space', this is the defintion of a Hilbert space that I have always understood and it is clear from this defintion that a Hilbert space may be finite-dimensional.
 
  • #22
Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics Vol. 1 by Byron and Fuller describes a Hilbert space as a 'complete inner product space', this is the defintion of a Hilbert space that I have always understood and it is clear from this defintion that a Hilbert space may be finite-dimensional


I'm not an expert in mathematics, but i have a great quantity of mathematical books.
For example, "Introductory real analysis",Kolmogorov,english edition, (also literally):
DEFINITION 5. By a Hilbert space is meant a Euclidean space which
is complete, separable and infinite-dimensional.

But is true taht in QM Hilbert spaces are treated often as finite dimensional, at least in some webpages I have visited
 
  • #23
All the books I read from mention no condition of finite dimensionality or otherwise. In fact, a well known result is that all finite dimensional inner-product spaces (pre-Hilbert spaces) are in fact necessarily Hilbert spaces.
 
  • #24
meteor:
I have that book. According to my understanding, that Hilbert space is infinite dimensional means that a function f(x) can be considered as infinite dimensional vector.
 
  • #25
Who even cares if the Hilbert space must be restricted to finite dimensionality ?
This is semantics with not much purpose. Bourbaki makes no reference to dimensionality, and I think there is really no need to have such a restriction and use special different names for both.
Let us stick to more relevant issues.
 
  • #26
If you just take time to google it, you will stare many references with names quoting their university professor position, saying "in the case of finite dimensional Hilbert space". Not only wikipedia makes no reference to dimensionality in the definition, so does mathworld.
 
  • #27
Ok..

In quantum mechanics we are usually reffering to an infinite dimensional hilbert space, unless you want to work on a lattice or something like that.. But in terms of a continum our Hilbert spaces are necessarily infinite. The catch is sometimes physicists ignore the hard parts of the spectral theorem and treat it as semi finite dimensional (in a sense). Thats the logical problem I was reffering too.

Mathematically, you are free to invent whatever object you want, define it however you want and investigate its properties. Hence the confusion in convention.
 
  • #28
Please stop saying \left(\mathbb{R}^n,\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2}\right) is not a Hilbert space. This is probably the first example taught in most lectures. Or address the question in the math section of the forum, and please post a link afterwards. I keep thinking Bourbaki's definitions tend to have some relevance.
 
  • #29
humanino said:
Please stop saying \left(\mathbb{R}^n,\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2}\right) is not a Hilbert space.

It is NOT a Hilbert space :-p :-p

Seriously, it should be over the complex numbers, not the reals, no ?

cheers,
patrick.
 
  • #30
Not necessarilly. It is over some kind of field, among which \mathbb{R} or \mathbb{C} are at least to me the most relevant example. Yet, I am not certain one could not use another kind of non-commutative field, such as the quaternions \mathbb{H}. This is not very relevant here.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Patrick, I notice you use Berberian's text. According to his exposition, it is a Hilbert space. See 2.8, example 6. It doesn't matter what space you use, as long as it is Cauchy-complete, which the real numbers are under the metric induced by the scalar product. The quaternions are also complete under a similar metric, and so also form a Hilbert space.

I'd like to address selfAdjoint's question in more detail. The existence of a countable dense subset in a Hilbert space is implied by the existence of a countable orthonormal basis, and hence is separable in the topological sense. I could write a proof, but I can't find a margin that will contain it. Instead, I refer you to http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~jerdos/OpTh/w3.pdf , page 4 for a sketch of a proof.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Lonewolf said:
Patrick, I notice you use Berberian's text. According to his exposition, it is a Hilbert space. See 2.8, example 6. It doesn't matter what space you use, as long as it is Cauchy-complete, which the real numbers are under the metric induced by the scalar product. The quaternions are also complete under a similar metric, and so also form a Hilbert space.

Well, in II, paragraph 1, definition 1, it is stated that a pre-hilbert space is a COMPLEX VECTOR SPACE, etc...

In II, paragraph 5, definition 1: A complete pre-Hilbert space is called a Hilbert space.

So this includes finite-dimensional vector spaces, but always over C.
It might be that this is just terminology, which changes from author to author, of course.

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #33
But checking the axioms in definition 1, and taking the real numbers as a subset of the complex numbers, we see that the real numbers do indeed form a pre-Hilbert space. I agree though, different authors do seem to use different criteria for the definition of a Hilbert space. I prefer to take the most general one, myself.
 
  • #34
Does anybody have anything to say on humanino's question on wavelets? I'd be interested to know too, and I believe wavelets had some of their origin rooted in quantum field theory.
 
  • #36
Well it's a bit of a shock to go on holiday for a weekend and come back to find everyone discussing what a Hilbert space is. :smile:

As far as I am aware, L2 doesn't have a countable basis. If it did, we would have that L2 is isomorphic to l2, which isn't true.

Remember however that in QM we use a state space which is, usually, a subspace of L2, not the whole space. It remains a Hilbert space. It doesn't have to be infinite-dimensional (consider the basis of the spin space). Furthermore, these subspaces can have countable bases - consider the basis for the infinite square well.

It appears to me that there is a certain thought paradigm one has to get used to when it comes to applying mathematical concepts to physics. In relation to QM, for example, we have to remember that we don't say "Right, here's a Hilbert space, let's get us a basis". What we do is -

1. Write down a potential.

2. Solve the Schrödinger equation for this potential.

The second step GIVES US a basis for the state space that arises naturally out of the system (involving a potential and some degrees of freedom, ie coordinates). We are then working in that particular Hilbert space when considering this system.

Typically the elements of the basis are the state vectors for each of the energy eigenvalues. There is a slight subtlety when one has degeneracy in the energy levels.

In short, the Hilbert space for a system arises from the Schrödinger equation. The essential feature of a Hilbert space is that it is complete, not that it is infinite dimensional. In fact, a Hilbert space is generally defined as a complete inner-product space. Naturally we can extend this definition - there are specialised Hilbert spaces with additional structure, such as separability. However, in the modern context, completeness is the key feature.

Kane
 
  • #37
Kane O'Donnell said:
As far as I am aware, L2 doesn't have a countable basis. If it did, we would have that L2 is isomorphic to l2, which isn't true.

I would have sworn otherwise! You make me doubt now, but I thought that L2 WAS isomorphic to l2...

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
vanesch said:
I would have sworn otherwise! You make me doubt now, but I thought that L2 WAS isomorphic to l2...

Ah, I thought so !

http://www.math.gatech.edu/~loss/03falltea/6580/hilbertspaces.pdf

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Hey Patrick,

have you noticed L^2(\mathbb{R}^n) in your document :smile:
Anyway, the issue about real or not real has never been one really. It is good we review the fundamentals. :approve:
 
  • #40
Ahh, I'm sorry - I should have been more precise yet again. By l2 I refer to the space l2(N) of square summable sequences indexed by the natural numbers.

I seem to have conflicting information about whether L2 has a countable basis. I will research further.

Kane
 
  • #41
humanino said:
Hey Patrick,

have you noticed L^2(\mathbb{R}^n) in your document :smile:
Anyway, the issue about real or not real has never been one really. It is good we review the fundamentals. :approve:

:approve: indeed :blushing:

However, what you write is not what I meant. L^2(R^n) can be COMPLEX functions over R^n, such as the wave functions in R^3, no ?

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #42
OK that's right :smile:
It is even usually what is meant by this, I realize now. :blushing:
L^2(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{R})
L^2(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{C})
 
  • #43
humanino said:
OK that's right :smile:
It is even usually what is meant by this, I realize now. :blushing:
L^2(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{R})
L^2(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{C})

But you're probably right that the field doesn't matter too much, and, as we agreed on earlier, it is a matter of terminology. I don't know if anywhere you need algebraic closure to devellop the essential structure of Hilbert space, guess you don't. Only, I honestly wasn't aware that people even considered such extensions as "Hilbert spaces". So I learned something :-p

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #44
vanesch said:
But you're probably right that the field doesn't matter too much, and, as we agreed on earlier, it is a matter of terminology. I don't know if anywhere you need algebraic closure to devellop the essential structure of Hilbert space, guess you don't. Only, I honestly wasn't aware that people even considered such extensions as "Hilbert spaces". So I learned something :-p

cheers,
Patrick.
In quant-ph/0212139 you can find Pro-Hilbert Space with non-Euclidian metric. It is mean that we was loss the metric in the definition of scalar product. Than the metric can play the role of non-local Hidden Variable and to help us to explain the non-locality in QM.
 
  • #45
Ahh what?

Anyway, I was wrong about L2 - it is of countably infinite dimension. I was getting confused with the set:

\{ e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}} : \vec{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}\}

which is used in Fourier analysis, and the *basis*:

\{ e^{i\vec{n}\cdot\vec{r}} : n_i \in \mathbb{N}, r_j \in (a, b)\}

My apologies for that! :smile:

Besides, it was inherently silly of me - all bases have the same cardinality, and the set:

\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{R}) = \{x^n : n \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \}

is a countable basis for L2 except \mathbb{L}_2(-\infty, \infty). I should have known!

Cheerio!

Kane
 
  • #46
How to understand Hilbert spaces:

I have read this thread and I would like to add the following explanations on the Hilbert spaces used in QM theory.
I think it is important to understand why Hilbert spaces, which are the generalisation to infinite dimension of the finite dimension vector space, have been introduced (e.g. generalisation of the basis concept to the infinite dimension spaces).

The definition of general hilbert spaces Hilbert is based on the following assumption:
-- A vector space (on K= R or C) called H (dimension finite or infinite)
-- A hermitian product (= an inner product if vector space on R): <,>
-- The vector space is complete

No other stuff is required. No L2, l2 or other spaces are required (they are only examples of what can be abstract Hilbert spaces, and more precisely they are some examples of <,>).

K= R or C
========

First, the selection of C instead of R is only a matter of convenience: for example, a real anti symmetric matrix can be made diagonal only if the field number K=C of the vector space.

Completeness:
================

The main difficulty on Hilbert spaces rises from the definition of complete that is associated to the hermitian product: The hermitian product, defines a norm |psi|^2=<psi|psi> on the vector space. This norm induces a topology on the vector space that allows defining continuity/limit and thus completeness properties:

-- if H is included in another set with the same topology (i.e. induced by <,>), the completeness property is very simple: it says that the closure of H is H (all the limit points of a sequence belongs to H: H is a closed set).

Example: how to get a hilbert space:
If preHilbert= Vect (xi, i e I) = {sum_ ieI ci.xi, sum is FINITE} we thus have
Hilbert= closure(prehilbert)= {sum_ ieI ci.xi, sum Cauchy convergent}
** e: belongs to

-- When there is no “outside set” containing H, we use the “inside H” definition for the completeness property: The limit (a point=vector) of any Cauchy sequence (of points= vectors) belongs to H, i.e. any Cauchy sequence converge on H.

The important point of the completeness of an Hilbert space is the introduction of vectors that are the limit of a sequence of vectors. The completeness property allows one to write any vector as a sum of other vectors of H: It is the introduction to the existence of the generalisation of a basis (of infinite dimension) in the Hilbert space.

We thus have a trivial result: finite dimensional vector spaces are Hilbert space: we do not need to introduce the concept of Hilbert spaces in finite dimension vector spaces as they have already the property we want (an existence of a basis for the set of vectors).

Now, we can consider the additional properties of a Hilbert space, the existence of a basis and the existence of a countable basis.

In fact, the existence of a countable basis (the existence of basis with the countable property) is directly linked to topology of H (thus the property of the hermitian product): whether H is separable or not.

H Separable – existence of a countable basis:
=================================


H is separable if H is the closure of a countable set (e.g. xn, n e|N) therefore included in H. We thus have:
H= Closure(xn, n e|N)= (sum_ ie|N ci.xi, sum Cauchy convergent) thanks to the linearity of the limit of a sequence and the linearity of a vector space).

The fact, H is separable, is equivalent to the one where each vector of H may be written as a countable sequence of vectors (x eH, x= sum_ i ci.xi, i e|N).

Now if we use the Schmidt orthogonal procedure (construction of an isomorphism), we can transform the family of vectors (e.g. xn, n e|N) into an orthogonal basis (e.g. an, n e|N, <ai,aj>=delta_ij):

We see that we have found a countable Hilbert basis for a SEPARABLE Hilbert space:

H SEPARABLE <=> H has a countable Basis !

How H is separable:
===============

Now, the important fact is the separable property of H that allows the existence of countable basis. So where does come from the separable property?

From the hermitan product! : H is separable if H is the closure of a countable set (e.g. xn, n e|N), therefore included in H.
Therefore we know that, because the closure property depend on the topology that is defined by the hermitian product, the separable property is also defined by the hermitian product!

The separable property with the existence of countable basis shows the isomorphism between Hilbert spaces that depends only on the properties of the hermitian product.

Example:
L2 is isomorphic to l2 because L2, as a Hilbert space, is separable.

We see that the separable property of L2 space comes from the hermitian product that is the Lebesgues integral. It is the property of the Lebesgues’ integral (the measure on the sigma-algebra– general theory of integration) that induces the separable property.

Conclusion:
=========


We have seen that the definition of the hermitian product defines all the main properties of the Hilbert space (completeness, separable, and others such as projector theorems).

The advantage of abstract Hilbert space is that they do not require the definition of an “integral”, just the abstract Hermitian product. In that sense, it is the hermitian product that defines the integral (as a particular linear application). It is at the heart of the QM theory tools.

As an example, take two operators a,a+ satisfying the relation [a,a+]=1 (harmonic oscillator) on an unknown abstract SEPARABLE Hilbert space.
The operator relation [a,a+]=1 thus define a countable basis (|n>,n e|N). |n> are the abstract eigenvalues of the N=a+a operator. This countable basis may be used (restriction) to define the hermitian product and the QM separable Hilbert space itself (i.e. the set of vectors induced by |n> with finite norm).

Up to now, we do not need any integral to compute values on the QM Hilbert spaces. However, this Hilbert space is separable, we thus have an isomorphism between this quantum Hilbert spaces and the L2 or l2 spaces: we have the connection between the integral and the abstract hermitian product.

To end, recall that the choice of QM separable Hilbert spaces is equivalent to the restriction of Hilbert spaces generated by the operators N=a+a (we do not take vectors outside).

Therefore, if we do not require the Hilbert space to be separable (for example, one wants to extend the domain of validity of QM theory), we question in fact the existence of an Hilbert basis. The existence of a basis is thus more difficult to demonstrate and more fundamental also. : )
In fact, the existence of a general abstract Hilbert basis is directly connected to the zermelo-frankel set theory: in brief, we may postulate the existence of basis if we accept the zermelo-frankel choice axiom.
And for the one’s who knows a little the zermelo-frankel set theory, he knows that we can choose a consistent set theory without this choice axiom (changing also other important math properties that we currently use)!


Seratend.
 
  • #47
Thank you very much for this rigorous explanation. I appreciate very much :approve:

Would you mind posting one on Lie algebras ? :-p
 
  • #48
I will try. :blushing:
However, give me a moment (it is important when writting a short version to underline the main topics: why the things really are).
Indeed, It is good a exercise to improve my use of English math terms :biggrin: .

Seratend.

PS. By the way, I've started a new thread (named "Call for superselection rules ") to try to collect the known superselection rules in QM (classic or relativistic). Does anyone have some other superselection propositions ? :frown:
 
Back
Top