Proof that all operators are linear

In summary, the conversation discussed the idea of proving that all operators on a Hilbert space are linear, but it was pointed out that this is not necessarily true. The flaw in the reasoning was identified to be the assumption that the operator is Hermitian, which implies linearity. It was also noted that bra-ket notation may be misleading when dealing with nonlinear operators.
  • #1
dEdt
288
2
"Proof" that all operators are linear

I've "proven" that all operators acting on a Hilbert space are linear. Obviously this isn't true, so there must be a fault in my reasoning somewhere. I having trouble finding it though, and would appreciate input by someone who can.

Let [itex]|\psi\rangle = \alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle[/itex], [itex]A[/itex] be an arbitrary operator, and [itex]|\phi\rangle[/itex] be an arbitrary vector.
[tex]\langle\phi|A|\psi\rangle =(\langle\phi|A)|\psi\rangle=(\langle\phi|A) (\alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle)=\alpha (\langle\phi|A)|a\rangle+\beta(\langle\phi|A) |b\rangle= \alpha \langle\phi|(A|a\rangle)+\beta\langle\phi|(A |b\rangle)= \langle\phi| (\alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle).[/tex]

So
[tex]\langle \phi |(A|\psi \rangle)=\langle\phi| (\alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle)[/tex]
for all [itex]\langle \phi |[/itex]. Therefore
[tex]A(\alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle)= \alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle.[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Please define what you mean with operator.
Also, please define what you mean with [itex]<\varphi|A|\psi>[/itex], [itex]<\varphi|A[/itex]and [itex]A|\psi>[/itex] and why they are linear.
And please explain why [itex](<\varphi|A|)|\psi>=<\varphi|(|A|\psi>)[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #3


An operator is a map from the Hilbert space to itself.
[itex]A|\psi\rangle[/itex] is the vector produced by acting the operator [itex]A[/itex] on the element of the Hilbert space [itex]|\psi\rangle[/itex].

The action of the same operator on a dual vector (or bra vector) is denoted [itex]\langle \phi| A[/itex]. It is defined so that [itex](\langle \phi| A)|\psi \rangle=\langle \psi| (A|\psi \rangle)[/itex] for any bra and ket. This number is thus denoted [itex]\langle \psi| A |\psi \rangle[/itex].
 
  • #4


At the third equality, you're using that ##\langle\phi|A## is linear. But that "product" is defined by ##\left(\langle\phi|A\right)|\chi\rangle =\langle\phi|\left(A|\chi\rangle\right)## for all ##|\chi\rangle## in the Hilbert space, and I don't see a reason to think that this makes ##\langle\phi|A## linear.

##\langle\phi|A## is clearly linear if both ##\langle\phi|## and ##A## are, but we haven't assumed that A is linear.
 
  • #5


The third equality holds by the linearity of the inner product, no?
[tex]\langle \chi | \psi \rangle = \langle \chi|( \alpha |a\rangle + \beta |b\rangle)=\alpha \langle \chi| a\rangle + \beta \langle \chi|b\rangle[/tex]
Now just replace [itex]\langle \chi|[/itex] with [itex]\langle \phi|A[/itex].
 
  • #6


dEdt said:
I've "proven" that all operators acting on a Hilbert space are linear. Obviously this isn't true, so there must be a fault in my reasoning somewhere. I having trouble finding it though, and would appreciate input by someone who can.

Let [itex]|\psi\rangle = \alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle[/itex], [itex]A[/itex] be an arbitrary operator, and [itex]|\phi\rangle[/itex] be an arbitrary vector.
[tex]\langle\phi|A|\psi\rangle =(\langle\phi|A)|\psi\rangle=(\langle\phi|A) (\alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle)=\alpha (\langle\phi|A)|a\rangle+\beta(\langle\phi|A) |b\rangle= \alpha \langle\phi|(A|a\rangle)+\beta\langle\phi|(A |b\rangle)= \langle\phi| (\alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle).[/tex]

So
[tex]\langle \phi |(A|\psi \rangle)=\langle\phi| (\alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle)[/tex]
for all [itex]\langle \phi |[/itex]. Therefore
[tex]A(\alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle)= \alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle.[/tex]

Try to consider A2
 
  • #7


dEdt said:
Now just replace [itex]\langle \chi|[/itex] with [itex]\langle \phi|A[/itex].
That's exactly what we can't do, because we haven't proved that ##\langle\phi|A## is a bra, i.e. that it's a bounded linear map from the Hilbert space into ℂ.

What you proved in post #1 is that for all ##A:\mathcal H\to\mathcal H##, if ##\left\langle\phi\right|A\in \mathcal H^*##, then ##A## is linear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes JuanC97
  • #8


dEdt said:
The third equality holds by the linearity of the inner product, no?
[tex]\langle \chi | \psi \rangle = \langle \chi|( \alpha |a\rangle + \beta |b\rangle)=\alpha \langle \chi| a\rangle + \beta \langle \chi|b\rangle[/tex]
Now just replace [itex]\langle \chi|[/itex] with [itex]\langle \phi|A[/itex].

The inner product between a bra and a ket is linear because a bra is (defined to be) a linear map from the space H of kets to the complex numbers. ##\langle \phi | A## defines a map from H to the complex numbers but it is not necessarily a linear map unless A is linear. Accordingly the bra-ket notation becomes quite misleading as ##(\langle \phi | A)## is not a bra, even though it looks like one.

We are (or at least I am) accustomed to think of a bra ##\langle \phi |## as a row vector, while kets are column vectors. This is valid because any linear map from a vector space to the complex numbers can be written as a row vector where the linear map is implemented by multiplying the row vector by the column vector we are mapping. However, if A is not linear then the map from H to the complex numbers given by ##(\langle \phi | A)## cannot be thought of as a row vector. There is no row vector that implements this map from H to the complex numbers.
 
  • #9


dEdt said:
I've "proven" that all operators acting on a Hilbert space are linear. Obviously this isn't true, so there must be a fault in my reasoning somewhere. I having trouble finding it though, and would appreciate input by someone who can.

Let [itex]|\psi\rangle = \alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle[/itex], [itex]A[/itex] be an arbitrary operator...

I don't think that bra-ket notation can be used for nonlinear operators.
 
  • #10


Just to point out a mistake. A cannot act on <Χ|... it's A* that acts on <X|.
In your analysis you chose to say that
A=A* (or in other words that your operator is Hermitian)
However Hermitian operators are LINEAR.
 
Last edited:
  • #11


Morgoth said:
Just to point out a mistake. A cannot act on <X|... it's A* that acts on <X|.
Any operator can "act" on a bra in the sense that we can define <X|A to be the (not necessarily linear) functional such that (<X|A)|Y> = <X|(A|Y>). A* is not fundamentally different from A. They're both operators.
 
  • #12


When A*=A, we are talking about hermitian operators.
If you really want A to act on BRAs you have to have the A* acting on KETs.
that is because the direct product of bra and ket is a complex number:
<g|f>=<f|g>*
that is the reason if A acts on the kets you get the A[del] acting on bras, or vice versa.
The action of the same operator on both sides holds true only for hermitian operatos (which are linear).
In fact he proved that hermitian operators are linear...


((P.S. SOMEONE INFORM ME HOW TO USE BRA-KET IN LATEX XD))
 
Last edited:
  • #13


Morgoth said:
When A*=A, we are talking about hermitian operators.
Right, but no one mentioned A* above, did they?

Morgoth said:
If you really want A to act on BRAs you have to have the A* acting on KETs.
You don't have to have an A* at all. The OP considered an arbitrary map from a Hilbert space into the same Hilbert space, and A* is usually only defined for linear A. I don't think it can be defined for arbitrary A.

Morgoth said:
((P.S. SOMEONE INFORM ME HOW TO USE BRA-KET IN LATEX XD))
Start by clicking the quote button next to one of the posts above, e.g. my post #4, to see how we're doing it. The codes you need to know are \langle and \rangle. See this FAQ post for general information about LaTeX at PF.
 

1. How do you prove that all operators are linear?

To prove that all operators are linear, we must show that they satisfy the two properties of linearity: additivity and homogeneity. This means that for any two vectors u and v, and any scalar k, the operator T satisfies T(u + v) = T(u) + T(v) and T(ku) = kT(u).

2. What is the significance of proving that all operators are linear?

Proving that all operators are linear is significant because it allows us to use powerful mathematical tools and techniques to analyze and solve problems involving operators. It also helps us understand the fundamental properties and behaviors of operators, which can have important applications in various fields such as physics, engineering, and computer science.

3. Can you give an example of a linear operator?

One example of a linear operator is the differentiation operator in calculus. This operator satisfies both additivity and homogeneity, as the sum of the derivatives of two functions is equal to the derivative of their sum, and the derivative of a scalar multiple of a function is equal to the scalar multiple of the derivative of the function.

4. What happens if an operator is not linear?

If an operator is not linear, it means that it does not satisfy the properties of linearity. This can lead to unexpected and inconsistent results when using the operator in mathematical computations. It may also make it more difficult to analyze and solve problems involving the operator.

5. How is the linearity of an operator related to its matrix representation?

The linearity of an operator is directly related to its matrix representation. A linear operator can always be represented by a matrix, and conversely, any matrix can be interpreted as a linear operator. The properties of linearity are reflected in the structure and operations of the matrix, making it a useful tool for analyzing and solving problems involving operators.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
961
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
795
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
966
Replies
2
Views
798
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
813
Back
Top