1
$\begingroup$

What I often encounter in books, is the following:

Say I have an operator $\hat{o}$, which I want to transform to $\hat{o}'= \hat{M}^{-1} \hat{o} \hat{M}$. When I now consider a "function" $f(\hat{o})$, its transformation is usualy expressed as $f(\hat{o}') = \hat{M}^{-1} f(\hat{o}) \hat{M}$.

My Question: Why can I express it that way? I'd have to make the critical assumption that I can express $f(\hat{o})$ as a sum of products of $\hat{o}$, which means that I can expand $f$ as a taylor series. Is that true?

Edit : I know how to solve this, if f is expandable. The question is, does the equation only hold for f being expandable? I'm thinkin for for example about the Potential operator in the hydrogen atom, which contains a singularity, and cearly isn'texpandable. Is it sufficient that it is expandable nearly everywhere?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Would Mathematics be a better home for this question? $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Sep 3 '17 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ It probably would. I might consider reposting it there. $\endgroup$ – Quantumwhisp Sep 3 '17 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ Or perhaps migrate? If you crosspost, be sure to mention it on both sites. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Sep 3 '17 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ I will consider this the better option. $\endgroup$ – Quantumwhisp Sep 3 '17 at 20:28
0
$\begingroup$

Let us assume as we always do in physics that your function $f(o)$ admits a taylor expansion in powers of $o$. Now $f(o') = f(M^{-1} o M)$ by definition of $o'$.

Expanding this using the taylor series for $f(o)$ it's easy to see that at the nth term is proportional to $M^{-1}o_1MM^{-1}o_2..........MM^{-1}o_{n}M$.

But $MM^{-1} = M^{-1}M = I$

Thus this nth term collapses to $M^{-1}o_{1}o_{2}.....o_nM$.

Using linearity of the operators $M$ and $M^{-1}$, you can pull $M^{-1}$ out from every term in the series on the left and $M$ out from every term in the series on the right, such that

$f(o') = f(M^{-1} o M) = M^{-1}f(o)M$.

QED

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think the question was precisely about whether or not the assumption of Taylor expansion is necessary, since defining functions of operators works for any measurable function by Borel functional calculus. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Jul 7 '17 at 11:29
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind yes, that is the Problem. $\endgroup$ – Quantumwhisp Jul 20 '17 at 12:47

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.