Identity Operator Proving without Bra-Ket Notation

  • Thread starter Thread starter johng23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity Operator
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the identity operator without using bra-ket notation or state vectors. The original poster seeks to demonstrate that the expression involving a complete basis set can be equated to the identity operator. A response clarifies that it is indeed possible to achieve this by defining a set of linear functionals that map wavefunctions to complex numbers. By using these functionals, one can establish that the operator formed from the basis functions is equivalent to the identity operator. This approach provides a way to express the identity operator without relying on Dirac notation, maintaining clarity in the mathematical representation.
johng23
Messages
292
Reaction score
1
I am trying to follow a derivation in a book which is written without bra-ket notation, and presumably without the concept of state vectors. I can easily follow it if I may use the fact that \sum_{n}|\varphi_{n}\rangle\langle\varphi_{n}| is the identity operator.

Analogously to the way I would prove that the above expression is the identity operator: I write \psi=\sum_{n}c_{n}\varphi_{n} as the expansion of a wavefunction on the complete basis set \varphi_{n}. If I use the fact that c_{m}=\int\varphi^{*}_{m}\psi d^{3}\textbf{r}, I can write \psi=\sum_{n}\varphi_{n}\int\varphi^{*}_{n}\psi d^{3}\textbf{r}. The statement which I would like to prove is identical to this, If I replace \psi on both sides by another expression \hat{w}\varphi_{n}. Thus I would like to extract \psi from the RHS and equate the rest of the expression to identity. How can I do this? The operator \hat{w} has no special relation to the basis functions \varphi_{n}.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello,

To translate from braket notation to your notation:
\mid \phi_n \rangle \leftrightarrow \phi_n
\langle x \mid y \rangle \leftrightarrow \int x^* y \mathrm d^3 r

Note that in the braket notation one formally rewrites \langle x \mid y \rangle as \left( \langle x \mid \right) \left( \mid y \rangle \right) where the x-thing is seen as an operator working on the y-thing.

In this formalism, and translating, we get

\int \phi_m^* \psi \mathrm d^3 r \leftrightarrow \langle \phi_m \mid \psi \rangle = \left( \langle \phi_m \mid \right) \left( \mid \psi \rangle \right)

and thus:

\boxed{ \mid \psi \rangle} \leftrightarrow \psi=\sum_{n}\varphi_{n}\int\varphi^{*}_{n}\psi d^{3}\textbf{r} \leftrightarrow \boxed{ \sum_n \mid \phi_n \rangle \langle \phi_m \mid \left( \mid \psi \rangle \right) }
 
Thanks for your answer. Actually though, I was more wondering whether it was possible to show that without introducing the concept of state vectors at all. The book doesn't use them so it seems there must be a way.
 
Oh, I see, you didn't want to prove the bra-ket identity theorem, but rather wanted an analogous expression without the Dirac notation (such that my whole post was redundant), correct?

If I understand you correctly, I think this might be an answer:
yes you can,
just define a set of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_functional" as \omega_n: H \to \mathbb C: \psi \mapsto \int \phi_n(\textbf r)^* \psi(\textbf r) \mathrm d^3 \textbf r where H is the hilbert space that we're working in.

With this entity, you can see (using your calculations) that the operator A : H \to H: \psi \mapsto \sum_n \phi_n \omega_n(\psi) is equal to the identity operator.

In shorthand, you can write I = \sum_n \phi_n \omega_n, where the definition of the operator is implicit. This is actually the same as what happens in the Dirac-notation, but less ambiguous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
640
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K