Scope of Hilbert Space of a System?

LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
357
Reaction score
33
In QM a system is represented by a Hilbert Space rather than a classical Phase Space. So, system A might be described by Hilbert Space Ha and system B might be described by Hilbert Space Hb.

Mathematically, Hilbert Spaces are many things, but the first thing they are, at the most fundamental level, is a set (of continuous, complex-valued, square-integrable functions, etc.).

My Question: In QM what defines the scope of the Hilbert Space for a specific system? (What elements are in its Hilbert Space set?).

As always, thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure I understand the question. All separable infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces are isomorphic to the Hilbert space L^2(\mathbb R^3) whose members are equivalence classes of square integrable functions. So I guess that's one answer.

If you meant "what are the real-world thingys that correspond to the members of that set?" you could say that each vector corresponds to an equivalence class of preparation procedures. However, if u and v are vectors, c is a complex number and u=cv, then u and v correspond to the same equivalence class of preparation procedures. So it's better to say that the 1-dimensional subspaces correspond to equivalence classes of preparation procedures. But even this is a bit unsatisfactory, since there are preparation procedures that don't correspond to state vectors.
 
Fredrik said:
I'm not sure I understand the question. All separable infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces are isomorphic to the Hilbert space L^2(\mathbb R^3) whose members are equivalence classes of square integrable functions. So I guess that's one answer.

If you meant "what are the real-world thingys that correspond to the members of that set?" you could say that each vector corresponds to an equivalence class of preparation procedures. However, if u and v are vectors, c is a complex number and u=cv, then u and v correspond to the same equivalence class of preparation procedures. So it's better to say that the 1-dimensional subspaces correspond to equivalence classes of preparation procedures. But even this is a bit unsatisfactory, since there are preparation procedures that don't correspond to state vectors.

Interesting reply.

I was thinking that one possible answer (for non-relativistic wave mechanics) might be "All solutions to the Schrodinger equation for that system". The set of all solutions of any differential equation is closed under scalar multiplication and vector (functions) addition.
 
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