Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A Rigged Hilbert Spaces In Quantum Mechanics

  1. Jun 17, 2017 #1

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In discussing stuff in another thread I used the standard Dirac notion expanding a state in position eigenvectors namely |u> = ∫f(x) |x>. By definition f(x) is the wave-function. I omitted the dx which is my bad but the following question was posed which I think deserved a complete answer. It was also off at a tangent to the main threads topic so really required a separate thread.

    Its the Dirac bra-ket notation.

    You are not the only one to be confused by it even though its in standard use in QM - so was the great Von-Neumann. He was scathing about it in his famous book on QM which with your mathematical background may be the presentation of QM you are most familiar with. Nowadays it can be made rigorous using the Rigged Hilbert Space (RHS) formalism:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigged_Hilbert_space

    |x> is the eigenvector of the position operator. It does not exist in Hilbert Space - but in a RHS.

    Heuristically here is whats happening. Suppose you have a very fine grid of positions with eigenvectors |xi> where each lies in some range Δx. We assume that positions lie in a large but finite range. These can be found in a finite dimensional Hilbert space and any element can be represented by ∑f(xi) |xi>. We then divide f(xi) and |xi> by √Δx so we have the new equation as ∑f(xi) |xi> Δx using these new f(xi) and |xi>. Then we let the range of positions go to infinity at the same time as Δx goes to zero. Then, heuristically |xi> goes to |x> where x is an exact position. f(xi) goes to a function f(x) and the sum goes to an integral ∫f(x) |x> dx Then we have this new continuous basis |x> - each is of infinite length and do not belong to a Hilbert space, but instead belong to this strange beast a RHS.

    This is all simply heuristics. I have attached a document giving the full rigor - but its no easy read nor short.

    Interestingly with your background in probability it also finds application in White Noise Theory (it called by its other name there Generalized Functionals and Schwartz Space - but it just is an example of a RHS):
    http://www.asiapacific-mathnews.com/04/0404/0010_0013.pdf

    Also interestingly since Von-Neumans scathing attack on it mathematicians were not lying down - it took the efforts of 3 great mathematicians - Gelfland, Schwartz and Grothendieck to sort it out.

    Thanks
    Bill
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 17, 2017 #2

    Zafa Pi

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thank you. I appreciate that.
    However, I still don't know where the dx in ∫f(x) |x> is supposed to go. Since you say,
    do you mean ∫f(x) |x> = ∫f(x)δ(x)dx? Though I am quite familiar with the Dirac bra-ket notation, as well as Schwartz distributions, Lighthill's generalized functions, and Mikusinski"s operational calculus, I admit to never seeing such an integral. Or do you mean (∫f(x)dx)⋅δ(x)? In which case I don't see any isomorphism with L2.

    I vaguely recall seeing Rigged Hilbert Space, but remember no content. Thanks for the reference and I'll check it out.
     
  4. Jun 17, 2017 #3

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It should be the usual notation for an integral ∫f(x) |x> dx,

    But some like Zee abuse the notation and write at as ∫f(x) dx |x>

    All RHS's are is, basically Hilbert spaces with distribution theory/generalized functions stitched on. Which is why the word Rigged is used - it not meant to mean rigged like a card game but like the scaffolding or rigging on a ship.

    But doing that leads down some rather hairy roads such as Nuclear spaces worked on by Grothendieck, all leading to its jewel in the crown - the Gelfand-Maurin Theorem. Its proof is interesting because THE tome on this stuff is the three volume set Gelfand and Shilov - Generalized functions. Its proof is wrong.

    However the attachment gives a correct proof that is valid for cases found in QM. I don't think its the full theorem which I have never seen a correct proof of.

    Thanks
    Bill
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Jun 19, 2017 #4

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Even for an ordinary Riemann integral, $$\int f(x) \frac{dx}{x^2+1}=\int \frac{dx}{x^2+1}f(x)=\int dx \frac{f(x)}{x^2+1}=\int \frac{f(x)}{x^2+1}dx$$. The place where the ##dx## occurs doesn't matter as long as the formula making up the integrand is linear in ##dx##.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  6. Jun 19, 2017 #5

    Zafa Pi

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ∫xf(x)dx ≠ ∫xdxf(x) = f(x)∫xdx. This was my problem. Check the beginning of post #3.
     
  7. Jun 19, 2017 #6

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    No. According to the customary rules, the first two expressions are equal, and the third expression is meaningless as ##x## appears both as a free and a bound variable.
     
  8. Jun 19, 2017 #7

    Zafa Pi

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Reading this stuff would have been far easier for me 60 years ago. I'm also reading http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html because of you, which is quite easy.

    However, I take issue with you with you for saying that the L2 "wave" function isn't actually a vector in the (L2) Hilbert Space. It is pretty standard and the preference for the RHS in the "B wave vs vector" thread wasn't really necessary.
     
  9. Jun 19, 2017 #8

    Zafa Pi

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Give me a break. If I asked anyone what ∫xdx is they would say ½x2 + c, not something like "the function whose rule is expressed by f(u) = ½u2 + an arbitrary constant". So if f(x) = 2 they would say f(x)∫xdx = x2 + c. Next you're going to tell me f(x) isn't a function, but rather a value in the range of f.. You're getting a bit too pedantic for me.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  10. Jun 19, 2017 #9

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    The integrals in quantum mechanics are all definite integrals!
     
  11. Jun 19, 2017 #10

    Zafa Pi

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Aha, thanks. Now it's even clearer that ∫f(x)|x>dx ≠ ∫f(x)dx|x>.
     
  12. Jun 19, 2017 #11
    Zafa, does this help?

    Write,

    |ψ> = ∫f(x)|x>dx .

    Then,

    <x'|ψ> = ∫f(x)<x'|x>dx

    = ∫f(x)δ(x'-x)dx

    = f(x') .

    If f Є L2, then |ψ> is an element of the Hilbert Space (proper).

    The converse also holds (modulo equivalence classes in L2 in terms of being equal "almost everywhere" – i.e. for any f,g Є L2

    f ~ g

    iff

    ∫ |f(x)-g(x)|2dx = 0 ).
     
  13. Jun 19, 2017 #12

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is e^ipx in a Hilbert space? It is in the RHS. Its also the wave-function of a state with definite momentum p.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  14. Jun 19, 2017 #13

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I remember reading about Rigged Hilbert space a while back, at your suggestion, and I was under the impression (or was it a mis-impression?) that there was a distinction between "bras" and "kets" in that formalism. I thought that a ket [itex]|\psi\rangle[/itex] meant an element of the Hilbert space, but that a bra [itex]\langle \psi|[/itex] meant a linear functional on Hilbert space. So [itex]\langle x'|[/itex] was a perfectly good "ket", since it's the function that takes a [itex]\psi[/itex] and returns [itex]\psi(x')[/itex]. But that there was no corresponding "bra" [itex]|x'\rangle[/itex].

    On the other hand, I suppose that the set of kets for one Hilbert space can be the bras for a different Hilbert space?
     
  15. Jun 19, 2017 #14

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    These are equal, no matter what you think.
     
  16. Jun 19, 2017 #15

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Is the issue about "variable capture"? There is certainly a distinction between

    [itex](\int f(x) dx) |x\rangle[/itex]

    and

    [itex]\int (f(x) |x\rangle dx)[/itex]

    If that's the issue, then the meaning could be clarified by using different variables in the first case: It would mean the same thing as [itex]\int f(x') dx' |x\rangle[/itex].

    The second is what is meant when people say that this is a representation of the "wave function".
     
  17. Jun 19, 2017 #16

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You are basically correct. The kets are some subset of a Hilbert space - for example the space of continuously deferentialable functions of compact support. Its dual is the RHS and is larger than the Hilbert space and is a bra.

    The functional's defined over the test space is the RHS and are expressed as bras - not ket's. To get around it you can define a RHS of ket's by taking the complex conjugate ie if |a> is a RHS test vector and <b| a member of the RHS of bras then you can define the RHS of kets by <a|b> = conjugate <b|a>. Sometimes you can even make sense of <a|b> where <a| and |b> are members of the RHS eg if they are members of the Hilbert space. This is part of the gelfland triple T⊂H⊂R where T is the test space and R is the RHS. Sometimes its possible to define <a|b> where a and b are from the RHS - in the Hilbert space H you can for sure.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  18. Jun 19, 2017 #17
    You meant it, rather, the other way around: T⊂H⊂R.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Rigged Hilbert Spaces In Quantum Mechanics
  1. Rigged Hilbert space (Replies: 28)

Loading...