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.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
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
Back
Top