Pervasiveness of linear operators

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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top