Pervasiveness of linear operators

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reasons for the prevalence of linear operators in quantum mechanics, exploring whether this is due to their inherent properties or simply a matter of convenience in theoretical formulations. Participants examine the implications of linearity in relation to observables, symmetries, and potential non-linear alternatives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that linear operators are ideal for practical work in quantum mechanics, questioning if their ubiquity has a deeper theoretical basis or is merely a convenience.
  • One participant emphasizes that every observable is associated with a linear operator as a key postulate of quantum mechanics, noting that experimental validation of this postulate is ongoing.
  • Another participant discusses the linearity of position and momentum operators, mentioning the noncommutativity of these operators and the implications for associating operators with physical quantities.
  • A general theorem by Wigner is referenced, which connects symmetries to linear unitary or antilinear antiunitary operators, suggesting that conserved quantities are represented by linear operators.
  • Some participants mention that nonlinear operators may arise in broader formulations of quantum mechanics, particularly in contexts involving convex state spaces.
  • One participant raises the idea that if quantum mechanics were non-linear, it could potentially allow quantum computers to solve NP-Complete problems, implying that the linearity of quantum mechanics is significant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the fundamental nature of linearity in quantum mechanics, with some supporting its established role while others explore the implications of potential non-linear frameworks. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity and implications of linear versus non-linear operators.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of associating operators with physical quantities due to noncommutativity, and the discussion includes references to specific theoretical frameworks that may challenge or expand upon the linear operator paradigm.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to operator theory, the foundations of quantum mechanics, and the implications of linearity in theoretical and experimental contexts.

ralqs
Messages
97
Reaction score
1
Obviously linear operators are ideal to work with. But is there a deeper reason explaining why they're ubiquitous in quantum mechanics? Or is it just because we've constructed operators to be linear to make life easier?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That every observable q is associated with some linear operator Q is a key postulate of quantum mechanics. Experimental physicists don't quite trust those goofy ideas that theoreticians claim to be true (and that is exactly what a postulate is, a claimed rather than a derived truth), so those experimentalists test, test, test, and test again. As far as I know, linearity has so far withstood the test of time.
 
Position and momentum operators are linear. In classical Hamiltonian mechanics every physical quantity is a function of positions and momenta. A function of linear operators (assuming some power series expansion) is a linear operator. In quantum mechanics we have to deal with noncommutativity of position and momenta, so association of operators to physical quantities is sometimes not quite unique - but in practice it occurs not so frequently.

Then we have a general theorem of Wigner associating every symmetry with a linear unitary (or antilinear antiunitary) operator from a very general assumptions. It follows that conserved quantities (generators of one-parameter groups of symmetries) are represented by linear operators.

Nonlinear operators may appear in more general formulations of quantum mechanics, when you start with a convex space of states which is not necessarily described by density matrices as for instance in Mielnik's http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.cmp/1103859881" by Haag and Bannier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quantum Computers are not believed to be able to solve NP-Complete problems. But if quantum mechanics were non-linear, then it's a different story as shown here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801041
Probably adds to the evidence the QM is fundamentally linear.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K