14
$\begingroup$

If vectors $|\vec{r}⟩$ and $|\vec{p}⟩$ are defined as

$$ \hat{\vec{r}} |\vec{r}⟩ = \vec{r} |\vec{r}⟩ \\ \hat{\vec{p}} |\vec{p}⟩ = \vec{p} |\vec{p}⟩ $$

then one can see that products like

$$ ⟨\vec{r}|\vec{r}⟩ \\ ⟨\vec{p}|\vec{p}⟩ $$

do not converge, which means that $|\vec{r}⟩$ and $|\vec{p}⟩$ do not belong to a Hilbert space as it is necessary that $\int |\psi|^2 < \infty$. So how should one understand these objects and what space do they belong to?

$\endgroup$
19
$\begingroup$

Physicists usually generously relax the condition that the norm should be finite and they sometimes say that $|\vec r\rangle,|\vec p\rangle$ belong to the "Hilbert space". It's exactly the same "generous" language that allows physicists to say that $\delta(x)$ is a "function", the delta-function, even though its values around $x=0$ are infinite or "ill-defined", so it's not really a function.

Rigorously mathematically, those objects don't belong to the Hilbert space (because their norm isn't finite) but (in analogy with the concept of "distributions" that include "functions" like $\delta(x)$) there exists a mathematical concept that includes such non-normalizable vectors, the rigged Hilbert space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigged_Hilbert_space

The idea that is that one may define a subspace $\Phi$ of the Hilbert space that contains smooth enough functions. The dual space to the Hilbert space $H$ is $H$ itself. But the dual space to the subspace $\Phi$ is $\Phi^*$ that is, on the contrary, larger than $H$, and it's this $\Phi^*$ that is called the rigged Hilbert space and that contains objects such as $|\vec r\rangle$. Formally mathematically, the whole triplet $(\Phi^*,H,\Phi)$ is usually referred to as "the rigged Hilbert space".

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "its values around $x=0$ are infinite or "ill-defined", so it's not really a function" I'm not a mathematician really so pardon me if this is a silly question, but why should something not be a function just because its domain is not infinitely inclusive? Is "divide 42 by $x$" not a function because the result is undefined when $x$ is $0$? $\endgroup$ – Lightness Races in Orbit Jul 1 '16 at 17:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Lightness: The issue is that the integral (from $-\infty$ to $\infty$) of the Dirac delta is defined to be 1, and there's no value you can assign a real number to $\delta(0)$ so that works out. $\endgroup$ – Deusovi Jul 1 '16 at 22:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LightnessRacesinOrbit: Then the function is just "$0$ everywhere unless $x=0$" - not very interesting. The Dirac Delta is actually part of a larger class called distributions, which can have integrals without necessarily being functions. $\endgroup$ – Deusovi Jul 1 '16 at 23:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LightnessRacesinOrbit: Because "$0$ everywhere unless $x=0$" is not the same thing as $\delta(x)$. It's a distribution such that integrating over any interval containing $0$ gives you $1$, and integrating over any interval not containing $0$ gives you $0$. $\endgroup$ – Deusovi Jul 2 '16 at 0:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LightnessRacesinOrbit it's not a function as defined by mathematicians. The value of $\delta(0)\rightarrow\infty$ $\endgroup$ – Larry Harson Jul 5 '16 at 17:55
1
$\begingroup$

Just to add to what's been said and to address the comment by @LightnessRacesinOrbit, you can indeed have perfectly good functions that are only defined on some subset of the real numbers. The reason the Dirac delta is not a function is not that it is only well-defined for some real numbers and not others; in fact, it is not defined as a function anywhere! It is instead defined as a sort of "hypothetical" function, call it $\delta(x)$, that, if it existed, would satisfy the property that when you integrated it against any other (sufficiently nice) function $f(x)$, you would get

$\int_{\mathbb{R}} \delta (x) f(x) \, dx = f(0) $.

There is no well-defined function that actually does this, but there are well-defined functions that come as close as you want: for example, functions we can call $\varphi_\varepsilon$ that are equal to zero everywhere except in a small interval $(-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$ around zero, and are equal to $\frac{1}{2\varepsilon}$ for $x \in (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$. Notice that if $f(x)$ is smooth, then

$\int_{\mathbb{R}} \varphi_\varepsilon (x) f(x) \, dx \approx f(0) $.

So we can get close to having a function that behaves the way we want a Dirac delta to, but not quite (that equality is only approximate, because $f(x)$ may vary over the interval $(-\epsilon,\epsilon)$). Rather than a function, the Dirac delta is really a linear operator that takes in a smooth function and gives you back the value of that function at $x=0$. Notationally we still pretend that there is a "function" $\delta(x)$ that embodies this operation when you integrate other functions against it, but more properly it is an element of the so-called "dual space" to the space of smooth functions that are zero outside a bounded interval - that is, it is an element of the space of linear operators on such functions (as a technicality: note that it is a continuous linear operator with respect to the uniform norm on smooth functions of compact support).

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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