Vector Space Basis: Clarifying Linear Independence

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of linear independence in the context of vector spaces and the use of orthonormal bases in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the definitions and implications of these concepts, as well as their applications in physical measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the definition of a basis and the requirement for linear independence, questioning a perceived contradiction in the source material.
  • Another participant clarifies that the term "other" in the definition does not apply to the vector itself, suggesting that each vector can be expressed as a linear combination of itself.
  • A participant introduces a tangential question about the significance of using orthonormal bases in quantum mechanics, indicating a lack of understanding of its physical implications.
  • In response, another participant explains that measurements in quantum mechanics are represented by linear operators, which have properties that necessitate the use of orthonormal bases, particularly when eigenvalues are real.
  • Further elaboration includes the assertion that Hermitian operators are essential for ensuring real eigenvalues and orthogonal eigenspaces, although one participant admits uncertainty about the foundational reasons for this requirement in quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant acknowledges a theorem related to self-adjointness and real eigenvalues, noting the complexity of the relationship between these concepts and the need for further exploration of projection-valued measures in quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing levels of understanding regarding the definitions and implications of linear independence and orthonormal bases. There is no consensus on the foundational reasons for the properties of measurement operators in quantum mechanics, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of these topics.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific mathematical properties and theorems without fully resolving the implications or assumptions underlying their statements, particularly regarding Hermitian operators and their role in quantum mechanics.

bugatti79
Messages
786
Reaction score
4
Hi Folks,

I find this link http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpaceBasis.html confusing regarding linear independence.

One of the requirement for a basis of a vector space is that the vectors in a set S are linearly independent and so this implies that the vector cannot be written in terms of the other vectors in the set S.

Yet on the first paragraph it states that the vectors form a basis if and only if every vector can be uniquely written as a linear combination of the other which to me is a contradiction!
Can someone clarify my misinterpretation
regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
>it states that the vectors form a basis if and only if every vector can be uniquely written as a linear combination of the other vectors in the set S.

The word "other" has nothing to do in that statement. For ## x\in S ## , that unique linear combination is ## x=x ##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker and bugatti79
ok, thanks.

On a slight tangent, why do we use this "orthonormal basis" in Quantum mechanics calculations? Ie, is the physical significance, if any, of using this?

Pardon my ignorance.
 
bugatti79 said:
On a slight tangent, why do we use this "orthonormal basis" in Quantum mechanics calculations? Ie, is the physical significance, if any, of using this?
The objects on which we do measurements are represented by unit vectors. Measuring devices are represented by linear operators. A measurement changes the object so that after the measurement it's represented by an eigenvector of the linear operator that represents the measuring device. The result of the measurement is always an eigenvalue of the linear operator.

Since results are eigenvalues, a measuring device whose output (the result of the measurement) is always a real number, must be represented by a linear operator whose eigenvalues are real numbers. Such linear operators have the following properties: a) their eigenvectors span the vector space, and b) eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues are orthogonal (and therefore linearly independent). So if the eigenspaces associated with the eigenvalues are all 1-dimensional, the normalized eigenvectors must form an orthonormal basis. If the eigenspaces aren't all 1-dimensional, things get more complicated, but still not very different from what I just said.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bugatti79
[..]a linear operator whose eigenvalues are real numbers. Such linear operators have the following properties:[...]

These properties follow from the assumption that the operators are Hermitian - actually, being hermitian is equivalent to having real eigenvalues and orthogonal eigenspaces.

As to why measurement operators in QM mut be hermitian, I don't know - I think it goes together with the whole idea that QM is formulated with Hilbert spaces, with the existence of amplitudes such that the probability of an outcome is the sum of squared (moduli of) amplitudes, and with the idea of unitary evolution, but I don't know what the precise statement is.
 
wabbit said:
These properties follow from the assumption that the operators are Hermitian - actually, being hermitian is equivalent to having real eigenvalues and orthogonal eigenspaces
Ah, I was remembering a theorem about equivalence of self-adjointness and having a spectrum that's a subset of ##\mathbb R##, but I forgot that the theorem I had in mind is specifically for normal operators. OK, I agree that real eigenvalues alone doesn't imply self-adjointness.

wabbit said:
As to why measurement operators in QM mut be hermitian, I don't know - I think it goes together with the whole idea that QM is formulated with Hilbert spaces, with the existence of amplitudes such that the probability of an outcome is the sum of squared (moduli of) amplitudes, and with the idea of unitary evolution, but I don't know what the precise statement is.
I don't have all the details worked out either, but I think the strategy to answer this question should be to argue that measuring devices should be represented by projection-valued measures, and that the spectral theorem specifies a correspondence between projection-valued measures and self-adjoint operators.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
760
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K