I Interpretation of direct product of Hilbert spaces

IanBerkman
Messages
52
Reaction score
1
Dear all,

I know how to interpret a vector, inner product etcetera in one Hilbert space. However, I can not get my head around how the direct product of two (or more) Hilbert spaces can be interpreted.
For instance, the Hilbert space ##W## of a larger system is spanned by the direct product of the Hilbert spaces of the subsystem, ## W = A \otimes B##. If the states ##| n_A\rangle## denote the basis states in ##A## and ##|m_B\rangle## those in ##B##, then any state in ##W## can be written as ##|\psi_W\rangle = \sum_{n,m} c_{nm}|n_A\rangle \otimes |m_B\rangle##.

How do you interpret the direct product of two Hilbert spaces?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is the tensor product, not the direct product.

And what do you mean with interpret? What exactly is it that you want?
 
Hmm, the book talks about the direct product between more Hilbert spaces.

I know how to "visualize" one Hilbert space i.e. a vector with eigenstates as orthogonal axes. However, is there also an intuitive way to visualize a Hilbert space which consists of the tensor product of two other Hilbert spaces? Which values are on the axes? How is a vector in the smaller system living in the Hilbert space represented in the larger system? Or is the tensor product purely mathematical?

If the question is unclear, please let me know.

Thanks.
 
As you mentioned coordinates (which are the scalars at basis vectors, their coefficients), do you know what ##|n_A\rangle \otimes |m_B\rangle## is according to your basis?
 
Hey IanBerkman.

If it is a tensor product (as micromass alluded to) then you should understand that the tensor product does what a Cartesian product does on sets but maintains the consistency and intuition of a vector space.

Basically vector spaces behave like "arrows" and when you take a tensor product you find out how to keep the space acting that way (like "arrows") with the intuition of a linear space but with the extra attribute of a Cartesian product (where you find all kinds of combinations of elements when you consider all permutations of each set).

So the points in the space become all combinations but the thing that separates this is that you have the vector space part and this is algebraic.

When you take the tensor product you can use the Cartesian product of two sets to get an idea of the points that remain but you have to make the space consistent with the organization that a vector space has (i.e. those ten axioms that every one has along with the inner product, norm, and metric space axioms it may additionally have) and what that means is that you need ways of identifying how to define the addition and scalar multiplication of the new space along with how a change of basis can occur and how the spaces are composed - which is what the tensor product is doing (it in "essence" is "composing" the "spaces").

It's like how you compose two mappings together except that you have the vector space axiom constraints to think about and make sure the new space is consistent with these new ones.
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...

Similar threads

Back
Top