Identity Operator Proving without Bra-Ket Notation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter johng23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity Operator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the identity operator without using bra-ket notation or the concept of state vectors. Participants explore alternative formulations and derivations that align with a traditional mathematical framework while addressing the identity operator's properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to derive the identity operator using a wavefunction expansion without relying on bra-ket notation, expressing a desire to extract a wavefunction from a given expression.
  • Another participant provides a translation from bra-ket notation to traditional notation, explaining how inner products can be represented in the context of the discussion.
  • A later reply clarifies that the original poster is looking for a proof without the Dirac notation, suggesting that it is indeed possible to define a linear functional to demonstrate the identity operator's equivalence.
  • It is proposed that defining a set of linear functionals can lead to an operator that acts as the identity, paralleling the Dirac notation but in a more explicit form.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of bra-ket notation for proving the identity operator, with some believing it can be done without while others initially misinterpret the request. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to achieve the proof without Dirac notation.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the mathematical framework and the definitions of the operators involved. The discussion does not resolve the ambiguity surrounding the transition between different notational systems.

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K