What is the meaning of \frac{1}{A}\left|\phi\rangle in quantum mechanics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rgoerke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expression \(\frac{1}{A}\left|\phi\rangle\) in the context of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on its interpretation when \(A\) is an operator, such as the Hamiltonian \(H\). Participants explore the implications of this expression within the framework of the spectral theorem and its applications to energy eigenstates.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether \(\frac{1}{A}\left|\phi\rangle\) is equivalent to the inverse of \(A\), indicating a lack of clarity on the notation.
  • Another participant explains the spectral theorem, stating that for a self-adjoint operator \(A\) with a continuous spectrum, a complex-analytic function of \(A\) can be expressed in terms of its eigenstates.
  • This participant provides a detailed derivation showing how \(\frac{1}{H - z}\) can be expressed using the eigenstates of \(H\) and relates it to the energy eigenstate \(|E\rangle\).
  • A third participant suggests that the case can be handled with simpler methods, noting that as long as \(z\) does not equal the eigenvalue \(E\), the operator \((H-z)\) has a multiplicative inverse, which leads to the expression \(\frac{1}{H-z}\) being well-defined.
  • This participant also clarifies that the points referred to as non-eigenvalues are those not included in the spectrum of \(H\), and mentions the discrete nature of the spectrum in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the complexity of the problem, with some advocating for a more general approach using the spectral theorem, while others argue for a simpler method based on the properties of the operator involved. No consensus is reached on the best approach to understand the expression.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the definitions of operators and their spectra, as well as the assumptions regarding the nature of the eigenvalues and the spectrum of the Hamiltonian. There are unresolved aspects regarding the specific conditions under which the expressions hold.

rgoerke
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I am led to believe (because it is in a paper I am reading) that
[tex]\frac{1}{H - z} \left|\phi\rangle = \frac{1}{E - z}\left|\phi\rangle[/tex]
where [tex]H[/tex] is the hamiltonian, [tex]\left|\phi\rangle[/tex] is an energy eigenstate with energy [tex]E[/tex], and [tex]z[/tex] is a complex variable.
In attempting to understand this expression, I have realized I do not know what is meant by
[tex]\frac{1}{A}\left|\phi\rangle[/tex]
for some operator [tex]A[/tex]. Is this the same thing as the inverse of A?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rgoerke said:
I am led to believe (because it is in a paper I am reading) that
[tex]\frac{1}{H - z} \left|\phi\rangle = \frac{1}{E - z}\left|\phi\rangle[/tex]
where [tex]H[/tex] is the hamiltonian, [tex]\left|\phi\rangle[/tex] is an energy eigenstate with energy [tex]E[/tex], and [tex]z[/tex] is a complex variable.
In attempting to understand this expression, I have realized I do not know what is meant by
[tex]\frac{1}{A}\left|\phi\rangle[/tex]
for some operator [tex]A[/tex].

Welcome to the wonderful world of the spectral theorem(s)! :-)

The basic idea is this: let A is a self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space,
and suppose it has a (continuous) spectrum from 0 to infinity.
Then it is possible to find a basis in the Hilbert space where each basis
state corresponds to a particular value in the spectrum, and in fact
a complex-analytic function of A, written "f(A)", can be expressed as

[tex] f(A) ~\leftrightarrow~ \int_0^\infty\! dk\; f(k) \; |k\rangle\langle k|[/tex]

where each |k> is one of the eigenstates of A, with eigenvalue k.
(The set of all such k is called the "spectrum" of A.)

In your case, we're dealing with the Hamiltonian operator H, and your
particular complex-analytic function is f(H) := 1/(H-z), so we can
express it as

[tex] \frac{1}{H - z} ~\leftrightarrow~ \int_0^\infty\! dk\; \frac{ |k\rangle\langle k|}{k - z}[/tex]

where now each |k>is an eigenstate of H with eigenvalue k, and these states are
"normalized" according to [itex]\langle k|k'\rangle = \delta(k - k')[/itex].

Now apply this to your [itex]|\phi\rangle[/itex], but first let's rewrite [itex]|\phi\rangle[/itex]
as [itex]|E\rangle[/itex], since this is a more helpful notation. This is ok because
[itex]|\phi\rangle[/itex] is (by definition) the eigenstate of H with eigenvalue E. We get:

[tex] \int_0^\infty\! dk\; \frac{ |k\rangle\langle k|}{k - z} ~ |E\rangle<br /> ~=~ \int_0^\infty\! dk\; \frac{ |k\rangle}{k - z} ~ \delta(k - E)<br /> ~=~ \frac{1}{E - z} \; |E\rangle[/tex]

To understand the spectral theorem(s) in more detail, it's probably best
to start with the finite-dimensional matrix versions in linear algebra
textbooks, and then progress to the functional-analytic versions,
then to the versions for rigged Hilbert space which is what I've been
using above. Or, for a more QM-flavored overview, try Ballentine ch1,
in particular sections 1.3 and 1.4.

HTH.
 
Last edited:
While it's good to know there's a generality, this particular case can be handled by lower-powered means -- so long as z ranges over the non-eigenvalues* of H, the operator (H-z) has a multiplicative inverse. 1/(H-z) is the unique operator that you can substitute for T in
[tex]T \left( (H-z) | \psi \rangle \right) = | \psi \rangle[/tex]​
which makes the equation hold for all kets.

If you restrict to the space generated by [itex]|\phi\rangle[/itex], then z merely has to avoid the value E. (Because, on this subspace, E is the only eigenvalue of H)

*: Really, I mean the points that aren't in the spectrum. But I think your H has a discrete spectrum... and so they are all eigenvalues too.
 
Thanks to both of you! That's a big help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
657
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K