Let $\mathcal A$ be a $C^*$ algebra in the sense of Haag and Kastler. We define a state as an element of the space dual to $\mathcal A$, that is, $$ \phi\colon\mathcal A\to\mathbb C $$

This definition of a state is supposed to generalise the standard definition (as an element of a Hilbert space over which the algebra $\mathcal A$ acts on). I believe the correct correspondence is $$ \phi(A)\overset{\text{identify}}\sim \langle \phi|A|\phi\rangle $$ where the r.h.s. corresponds to the usual "matrix notation" of standard quantum mechanics, with $A\in\mathcal A$ an arbitrary operator.

I guess I missed something about this definition, because I really don't know how to represent a non-diagonal matrix element of the form $$ \langle\phi|A|\psi\rangle $$ where $\phi,\psi$ are two distinct states. If my identification above is correct, what should we write in the l.h.s. of $$ \square\overset{\text{identify}}\sim \langle \phi|A|\psi\rangle\,? $$

  • $\begingroup$ First states are positive normalized functionals $\phi$. The matrix elements you consider are dedined by fixing two observables $C$ and $D$ and are maps $A \mapsto \phi(C^*AD)$. $\endgroup$ – Valter Moretti Oct 31 '17 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ @ValterMoretti, what is the intuition on this? Why taking two kets $|\phi\rangle,|\psi\rangle$ and forming $\langle \phi | A| \psi\rangle$ corresponds to maps $A\mapsto \phi(C^\ast A D)$ with $C,D$ fixed? $\endgroup$ – user1620696 Oct 31 '17 at 20:49
  • $\begingroup$ Look at the proof of GNS theorem and you will see that this is the correct point of view. Now I am too tired to write down an extended answer. $\endgroup$ – Valter Moretti Oct 31 '17 at 21:06
  • $\begingroup$ @ValterMoretti I believe I got the point by looking at the GNS construction. I posted one answer with my conclusion. If I got it incorrectly, please let me know. $\endgroup$ – user1620696 Oct 31 '17 at 21:45
  • $\begingroup$ @user1620696 you got the point indeed. $\endgroup$ – Valter Moretti Nov 1 '17 at 6:00

This is a tentative answer based on @ValterMoretti's comment and the GNS theorem following these notes. If anything is found to be wrong because I misunderstood it, please let me know.

Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the $C^\ast$-algebra and $\phi : \mathcal{A}\to\mathbb{C}$ a state. Endow the algebra it with the semi-inner product $\langle x,y\rangle = \phi(x^\ast y)$.

Consider then $N_\phi = \{x\in \mathcal{A} : \langle x,x\rangle = 0\}$. The GNS construction is based on noting that $N_\phi$ is a closed left ideal so that on the quotient $\mathcal{A}/N_\phi$ one gets a well-defined inner product descending from $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$. More precisely let $\Pi : \mathcal{A}\to \mathcal{A}/N_\phi$ be the canonical surjective projection, namely $\Pi(x)=x+N_\phi$. Define then

$$\langle \Pi(x),\Pi(y)\rangle=\langle x,y\rangle$$

It turns out that $\langle \Pi(x),\Pi(x)\rangle= 0$ if and only if $\Pi(x) = 0$. Indeed by definition the condition is equivalent to $\langle x,x\rangle = 0$ so that $x\in N_\phi$ and thus $\Pi(x) = 0$ as wanted.

Define $\mathcal{H}_\phi$ the completion of the inner product space $\mathcal{A}/N_\phi$ so that it is a Hilbert space. We represent $\mathcal{A}$ in $\mathcal{H}_\phi$ by

$$\pi_\phi : \mathcal{A}\to \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H}_\phi)$$

given the action on the elements of $\mathcal{A}/N_\phi$ by $\pi_\phi(a)(x+N_\phi)=ax+N_\phi$.

Remember now that the elements of $\mathcal{H}_\phi$ are to be the usual state vectors. They are thus the elements of $\mathcal{A}/N_\phi$ plus the limits of Cauchy sequences.

Let then $a\in \mathcal{A}$, so that we want to define its matrix elements.

Let $\Phi,\Psi\in\mathcal{A}/N_\phi$ be two state vectors so that $\Phi=\Pi(x)$ and $\Psi=\Pi(y)$. We then have

$$\langle \Phi,\pi_{\phi}(a)\Psi\rangle=\langle \Pi(x),\pi_{\phi}(a)\Pi(y)\rangle=\langle \Pi(x),\Pi(ay)\rangle=\phi(x^\ast ay).$$

Thus we see that the matrix elements as done in QM are obtained in the above form from elements of $\mathcal{A}$ which descend to states.

I believe that to generalize the whole of $\mathcal{H}_\phi$ one will finaly just need to argue with the limits of Cauchy sequences.


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.