Graduate Why are we allowed to use the trace cyclicity here?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Heidi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Trace
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the use of trace cyclicity for operators in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to finite and infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. The original query questions whether trace cyclicity applies when dealing with products of operators, specifically in cases where the operators are bounded and the Hilbert space is finite-dimensional. It is noted that while trace cyclicity is valid for trace-class operators, the conditions for its application in infinite-dimensional spaces require that both products AB and BA be trace-class. The conversation highlights the relevance of this concept in quantum field theory, where operators like exp(-H) are commonly encountered. Understanding the conditions under which trace cyclicity holds is crucial for accurate calculations in these contexts.
Heidi
Messages
420
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
trace cyclicity with operators?
Hi Pf
i am reading this article: pillet.univ-tln.fr/data/pdf/KMS-states.pdf
I know that the trace cyclicity can be used when there is a product of matrices. But here we have operators (an hamiltonian , an operator which can be the position operators) . the author take the trace of a product. is this product trace class? are we allowed to use the cyclicity formula of the trace here?
thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The operators are bounded because the Hilbert space is finite-dimensional. So we're talking here about finite matrices.
 
yes but my question is more general. Consider 2 operators A and B on an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. If the products AB and BA are class trace it is meaningful to consider Tr(AB) and Tr(BA)
Are there conditions on these operators so that trace cyclicity is true.
Qft is on infinite dimensional hilbert spaces and exp(-H) often appears as one of the operators in the trace.
 

Thread 'One does not “prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics'

I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...
View full post »

Similar threads

Graduate How can we measure these Hermitian operators?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Mathematical Quantum Statistics: Why is A*rho of trace class?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Are density matrices part of a real vector space?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Density Operators, Trace and Partial Trace
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Trace Distance in quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Understanding the Use of Trace in QFT Lagrangian for Chiral Symmetry in QCD
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Questions about the Casimir energy equation
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Density matrix formalism and Poincaré invariance
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Graduate Why we can perform normal ordering?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Does Bell's theorem imply nonlocality using a false assumption
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K