Let us suppose we have some quantum system whose Hilbert space admits a bipartition $\mathscr{H}\simeq \mathscr{H}_A\otimes \mathscr{H}_B$. Let $|n\rangle_A$ be a basis of $\mathscr{H}_A$ and $|m\rangle_B$ be a basis of $\mathscr{H}_B$. Then $|n,m\rangle_{A,B}$ is a basis of the composite system.

A general mixed state $\rho$ can be written always as $$\rho=\sum \rho_{nmn'm'}|n,m\rangle_{AB}\langle n',m'|$$

And we can define the partial trace over $\mathscr{H}_A$ to be $$\operatorname{Tr}_A\rho=\sum \rho_{mm'}|m\rangle_B\langle m'|,\quad \rho_{mm'}=\sum_n \rho_{nmnm'}$$

This seems to work well if $|n\rangle_A,|m\rangle_B$ are discrete basis.

Now, in Quantum Mechanics we often work with "continuous bases". These are not really rigorous since the "position eigenstates" $|x\rangle$ are not well defined. Still, this is very useful.

So now suppose that for $\mathscr{H}_A$ we take such a $|x\rangle_A$ basis. Then a basis of $\mathscr{H}$ is $|x,m\rangle_{A,B}$ and the state is $$\rho=\sum \int \rho_{mm'}(x,x') |x,m\rangle_{A,B}\langle x',m'|$$

And we can in analogy take a partial trace $$\operatorname{Tr}_A\rho=\sum \rho_{mm'}|m\rangle_B\langle m'|,\quad \rho_{mm'}=\int \rho_{mm'}(x,x)dx$$

It seems everything is fine, but now take the pure state $\rho = |z,\sigma\rangle\langle z,\sigma|$ (for instance, a particle located at $z$ with spin $S_z$ being $\sigma$). If we evaluate $$\rho_{mm'}(x,x')=\delta_{m\sigma}\delta_{m'\sigma}\delta(x-z)\delta(x'-z)$$

and the partial trace involves $(\delta(x-z))^2$ which is ill-defined.

Still, there should certainly be a way of talking about partial traces when continuous degrees of freedom like position and momentum are involved.

How is that done correctly? How to avoid this issue of getting a delta function squared when taking a partial trace over continuous degrees of freedom?

  • $\begingroup$ With your $\delta$ convention, you have the same problem with pure states when you try to normalize them. Intuitively, I'd say those should be square roots of $\delta$s (since the $\delta$ should appear in the probabilities, not the amplitudes). $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2019 at 23:50

1 Answer 1


I wouldn't say that the square of the delta function is ill-defined, there are ways to define functions of $\delta$, see e.g. this question. Rather, the problem is that it's the wrong result.

You are essentially looking for a formal way to write a $\rho(x,y)$ such that: $$\int dxdy \,\rho(x,y) |x\rangle\!\langle y|=|z\rangle\!\langle z|.\tag A$$ I guess you got the expression with the square of the Dirac delta by using $\langle x|z\rangle=\delta(z-x)$. This expression is, however, incorrect: integrating $\langle x|z\rangle$ over $x$ (or $z$) does not give you the identity. It is therefore more correct to use something like $$\langle x|z\rangle=\sqrt{\delta(x-z)},\tag B$$ so that $\int dx |\langle x|z\rangle|^2=1$, as it should be. There is no problem in defining this object if you think of distributions as "underdetermined functions" (that is, functions only defined via their integral properties): $\sqrt{\delta(x)}$ is a function whose square integrates to the identity and is zero outside of $x=0$. On a more rigorous level, you can make sense of these objects e.g. via holomorphic calculus, see this question.

Using (B), you get $\rho(x,y)=\delta(z-x)^{1/2}\delta(z-y)^{1/2}$. Integrating, you get $$\int dxdy\,\delta(z-x)^{1/2}\delta(z-y)^{1/2}|x\rangle\!\langle y|=|x\rangle\!\langle x|.$$ You can probably prove that this holds using specific properties of delta functions. A simple, if handwavy, argument is is based on understanding the delta functions as the limit of functions concentrated at $x=0$. Using rectangle functions for ease of calculation, you then have $$\int dxdy \, \delta(z-x)^{1/2}\delta(z-y)^{1/2}f(x,y) \simeq f(z,z) \Delta \frac{1}{\sqrt\Delta}\frac{1}{\sqrt\Delta}=f(z,z).$$ What I'm doing here is using the fact that $\delta(x)=0$ for $x\neq0$ to restrict the domain of integration to a "very small" region $\Delta$ around, in this case, $z$. If $f$ is continuous, then for $\Delta$ small enough I can always approximate $f(x,y)\sim f(z,z)$. Then, using rectangular approximations for the deltas, we have that both $\delta$ equal $1/\sqrt\Delta$ in this infinitesimal region. Because there are two such $\delta$, we get a factor $(1/\sqrt\Delta)^2$, which cancels out with the $\Delta$ coming out of the integration region.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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