How Does Orthogonal Projection Work in L^2 Spaces with a Self-Adjoint Operator?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AxiomOfChoice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Projections
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of orthogonal projections in L^2 spaces associated with self-adjoint operators, particularly focusing on the projection onto eigenspaces corresponding to discrete, non-degenerate eigenvalues. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of such projections and the implications of orthogonality.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a formula for the projection operator P onto the eigenspace associated with a normalized eigenfunction f_a, suggesting it satisfies properties of a projection.
  • Another participant agrees with the proposed form of P and notes that it is often represented differently in physics and mathematics literature.
  • A participant questions the necessity of proving that P is self-adjoint, indicating uncertainty about its importance in the context of orthogonal projections.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of using the term "the projection," suggesting that it may imply uniqueness, which could be misleading if non-orthogonal projections are considered.
  • One participant expresses a belief that any eigenvalue problem in a Hilbert space has an associated eigenspace and at least one projection onto that space, questioning whether this projection must always be orthogonal.
  • Another participant asserts that there exists an orthogonal projection onto any closed subspace of a Hilbert space, confirming that eigenspaces of bounded operators admit orthogonal projections.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is a projection onto the eigenspace associated with a discrete eigenvalue, but there is disagreement regarding the necessity of orthogonality and the implications of terminology used in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the potential ambiguity in the terminology surrounding projections in Hilbert spaces, particularly regarding orthogonality and uniqueness. There is also a lack of consensus on the necessity of proving self-adjointness for the projection operator.

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1
Suppose you have a self-adjoint operator [itex]A[/itex] on [itex]L^2(\mathbb R^n)[/itex] that has exactly one discrete, non-degenerate eigenvalue [itex]a[/itex] with associated normalized eigenfunction [itex]f_a[/itex]. What does the projection onto the associated eigenspace look like? My guess would be:

[tex] P(f) = (f,f_a)f_a = f_a(x) \int_{\mathbb R^n} f(x) \cdot \overline{f_a(x)}\ dx.[/tex]

This certainly satisfies [itex]P^2(f) = P(f)[/itex] and [itex]P(f_a) = f_a[/itex]...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AxiomOfChoice said:
Suppose you have a self-adjoint operator [itex]A[/itex] on [itex]L^2(\mathbb R^n)[/itex] that has exactly one discrete, non-degenerate eigenvalue [itex]a[/itex] with associated normalized eigenfunction [itex]f_a[/itex]. What does the projection onto the associated eigenspace look like? My guess would be:

[tex] P(f) = (f,f_a)f_a = f_a(x) \int_{\mathbb R^n} f(x) \cdot \overline{f_a(x)}\ dx.[/tex]

This certainly satisfies [itex]P^2(f) = P(f)[/itex] and [itex]P(f_a) = f_a[/itex]...

You still need to check that ##P## is self-adjoint. But this is true.

So indeed, the projection operator has the form you indicate.

In physics texts, they denote this operator often by ##\left|f_a\right\rangle \left\langle f_a\right|##. In math texts, it is denoted by ##f_a\otimes f_a##.
 
micromass said:
You still need to check that ##P## is self-adjoint.

I'd only need to do this if I were interested in showing [itex]P[/itex] was an orthogonal projection, right? Is that somehow crucial here? If so, I guess I don't see why.
 
AxiomOfChoice said:
I'd only need to do this if I were interested in showing [itex]P[/itex] was an orthogonal projection, right? Is that somehow crucial here? If so, I guess I don't see why.

Two remarks on this:

1) If you are working in a Hilbert space and if you say the word projection, then people will automatically assume orthogonal projections. The word "projection operator" in Hilbert space implies for the most people that it is orthogonal. So although you are right, you should specify when you are working with other kind of projections.

2) You said in your post

What does the projection onto ...

The word "the" indicates that the projection is unique. But if you allow non-orthogonal projections, then this is not the case. There are many projections that do the job.

You are correct though, and I'm just nitpicking. But I feel that this was important enough to mention anway.
 
micromass said:
The word "the" indicates that the projection is unique. But if you allow non-orthogonal projections, then this is not the case. There are many projections that do the job.
This is interesting. My intuition tells me that whenever you're considering any kind of eigenvalue problem for a (bounded, unbounded, self-adjoint, non-self-adjoint, etc.) linear operator in a Hilbert space, then for any eigenvalue there is an associated eigenspace and (at least) one projection onto that space. But is it *always* true that the projection has to be an orthogonal projection?

I guess this could be a very deep question with a textbook-chapter-length answer, or not very deep at all...
 
Yes, on any closed subspace of the Hilbert space, there is an orthogonal projection.

So any eigenspace of a bounded operator admits an orthogonal projection.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
646
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K