Representing Operators as Matrices and Differential Operators

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of operators as matrices and their translation to continuous bases, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics. Participants explore how operators, such as the kinetic energy operator, can be expressed in different bases, including position and energy eigenstates.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a representation of an operator A defined by a matrix and questions how this translates to a continuous basis, specifically for the kinetic energy operator T.
  • Another participant suggests that transitioning to a continuous basis involves changing summations into integrals, allowing the same logic to apply, and describes T as a function with infinite dimensions.
  • A participant raises the possibility of using energy eigenstates as a basis for expansion instead of position eigenstates.
  • It is noted that energy eigenstates form a countable basis only for bound states, while continuous spectra, such as those in scattering states, are not countable.
  • Another participant asserts that any operator can be expanded in terms of energy eigenstates as well as position eigenstates or other observable eigenstates.
  • A later reply confirms that the eigenstates of any hermitian operator form a complete basis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of bases used for operator representation, particularly regarding the countability of energy eigenstates and the applicability of expansions in different bases. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of continuous versus discrete spectra.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the assumptions about the nature of eigenstates and the conditions under which certain representations hold, particularly in the context of bound versus scattering states.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in quantum mechanics, operator theory, and the mathematical foundations of physics may find this discussion relevant.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
An operator A defined by a matrix can be written as something like:

A = Ʃi,jlei><ejl <eilAlej>

How does this representation translate to a continuous basis, e.g. position basis, where operators are not matrices but rather differential operators etc. Can we still write for e.g. the kinetic energy operator T:

T = ∫∫dr dr' lr'><rl <r'lTlr>

? Or how would T be represented.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I know there are some subtleties to shifting to a continuous basis, but basically yes. You change [itex]\Sigma[/itex]'s into [itex]\int[/itex]'s, and then all the same logic goes through. [itex]T[/itex] becomes a "matrix" with an infinite number of rows and columns, which you could think of as a function [itex]T(q_1, q_2)[/itex].
 
The energy eigenstates form a countable basis. Would it be possible to do the above expansion in those rather than position eigenstates?
 
^ The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian form a countable basis only if all the states are bound states, like in a harmonic oscillator. For example, the bound states of hydrogen atom form a discrete set, but the system also has a continuous spectrum of scattering states which have positive total energy. The continuous spectrum is not a countable set.
 
but either way you can expand any operator in energy just as well as position eigenstates right? or any other observables eigenstates..
 
^ Yes, the eigenstates of any hermitian operator form a complete basis.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K