Why the tensor product (historical question)?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 replies · 2K views
greypilgrim
Messages
583
Reaction score
45
Hi.

Why did the founding fathers of QM know that the Hilbert space of a composite system is the tensor product of the component Hilbert spaces and not a direct product, where no entanglement would emerge? I mean today we can verify entanglement experimentally, but this became technologically possible far later than for example the EPR paper.

My knowledge about functional analysis is pretty limited, is there a mathematical reason to exclude the direct product?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure of the historical reason but it is at least sufficient for the Born rule to work. If ##P_1## and ##P_2## are transition probabilities for independent systems, the joint transition probability ##P## is the product $$ P = P_1 P_2 = | \langle \varphi_1 |\psi_1 \rangle |^2 |\langle \varphi_2 |\psi_2 \rangle |^2 = | ( \langle \varphi_1 | \otimes \langle \varphi_2 |)(|\psi_1 \rangle \otimes |\psi_2 \rangle |^2$$ If we use the direct product instead (which I think is the same as direct sum for finite-dimensional vector spaces), states of independent systems will be orthogonal and the probabilistic interpretation won't work.

See also this post https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/tensor-products-and-subsystems.360264/#post-2473399.