Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Why does $$ \sum_n \Phi^{\ast}_n(x)\Phi_n(r)=\delta(x−r) $$ represents a completeness relation? Or, put differently, why does it imply completeness?

Is there any way to see it intuitively? Maybe an intuition concerning vector analogy? It seems to me that we are summing up the product of the component of a vector along the $x$ axis with its component along the $r$ axis (roughly speaking) of $n$ vectors but I can not quite see through the relation and I can not see why completeness holds through it.

share|cite|improve this question
    
@AccidentalFourierTransform thanks for helping, the formula is here : jpoffline.com/physics_docs/y3s6/mm_summary.pdf check equation (1.5) the second one. – TheQuantumMan Mar 5 at 20:20
up vote 3 down vote accepted

A "completeness relation" for a set of vectors $\lvert \psi_n \rangle$ is that the sum of the projectors onto them is the identity since that assures use there is no basis vector "missing", i.e. $$ \sum_n \lvert \psi_n\rangle\langle \psi_n \lvert = \mathbf{1}$$ and your relation is this evaluated in position space: Apply $\langle x \rvert$ from the left and $\lvert x' \rangle$ from the right to obtain $$ \sum_n \langle x \lvert \psi_n \rangle\langle \psi_n \vert x' \rangle = \langle x \vert x' \rangle$$ and since the wavefunction is defined by $\psi_n(x) := \langle x \vert \psi_n\rangle$ this gives $$ \sum_n \psi_n(x)\psi_n^\ast(x') = \delta(x -x')$$ so your equation is the completeness relation for the kets $\lvert \psi_n \rangle$ expressed in position space.

share|cite|improve this answer

Let's do a finite example. Suppose we have a vector space $V$ with a subset of vectors $E=\{\mathbf{e}_1,\mathbf{e}_2,\dots\}$. Also assume that $V$ has an inner product, and that this set of vectors is orthonormal. That is $$\langle\mathbf{e}_i,\mathbf{e}_j\rangle = \delta_{ij}$$

If the span of these vectors is all of $V$ (they form a basis for $V$) then we say that the set is a complete orthonormal basis for $V$. ("Complete" and "basis" pretty much mean the same thing here. There might be some nuance in the infinite dimensional case, but the intuition is the same)

Given $E$, we can construct a special linear operator that acts on $V$. We'll call it $P_E$ and its action on an arbitrary vector $v\in V$ is given by $$P_E(v) = \sum_{n}\langle \mathbf{e}_n,\mathbf{v}\rangle \mathbf{e}_n$$ $P_E(v)$ is a linear combination of $\mathbf{e}$'s, so it is a linear map that takes a vector from $V$ and returns a vector in $\operatorname{span}(E)$.

What if $\operatorname{span} E = V$? Well, then we know we can write every vector $\mathbf{v}$ as $\sum_i v^i\mathbf{e}_i$, so $$P_E(v) = \sum_{n,i}\langle \mathbf{e}_n,\mathbf{e}_i\rangle v^i \mathbf{e}_{n} =\sum_{n,i}\delta_{ni} v^i \mathbf{e}_{n}= \sum_{i}v^i \mathbf{e}_{i} = \mathbf{v}$$ Hence, if $E$ is a complete, orthonormal basis for $V$, then $P_E = I$, the identity operator on $V$. If it is orthonormal but not complete, $P_E$ sends $V$ to a restricted subspace of $V$.

To address your question all we have to do is notice that $\sum |\Phi_n\rangle \langle \Phi_n |$ is just a convenient way of writing $P_\Phi$ and that $\delta(x-r)$ is the identity operator on the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions.

share|cite|improve this answer

In the finite dimensional case completeness can be represented by $$I= \sum_{i=0}^n |i\rangle\langle i|, $$ where the kets are typically orthogonal. The relation in the OP is for continuous variables, and establishes that counting everything, the entirety is present somewhere.

It's often called the resolution of the identity, and it means that the expression accounts for all of the elements of probability; thus probability is conserved.

Here is an entire lecture on the topic: http://vanilla47.com/PDFs/Quantum/Tutorials/Lecture%20notes%20On%20Quantum%20Mechanics/Chapter%203%20-%20The%20Completeness%20Relation%20and%20Various%20Ket%20Representations.pdf

share|cite|improve this answer
1  
Hello and thanks for the answer, but why does your formula and my formula(which are the same) imply completeness? Is there a way to see through it and understand it? – TheQuantumMan Mar 5 at 20:25

protected by Qmechanic Mar 5 at 23:14

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.