3
$\begingroup$

In the Hilbert space of QM, in the finite dimensional case, for a complete orthonormal set of basis vectors, one writes the generic state vector as: $\psi=\sum_j(\phi_j,\psi)\phi_j$. When the complete orthogonal states form a continuum, most of the authors of books that I am reading (including Dirac, Weinberg and many others) replace the previous expression with an integral of the sort: $\psi=\int(\phi_\xi,\psi)\phi_\xi d\xi$ , which is justified with some kind of generic argument about taking a large number of discrete state and then pushing the number to infinity. Despite having some basic knowledge of the Riemann and Lebesgue integration and even of integration with respect to a projection-valued measures, I still cannot make sense of that integral expression. To me it looks merely formal. The same as saying that: $f(\xi)=\int \delta(\xi - \xi')f(\xi') d\xi'$ , which is just kind of hand waving, knowing what $\delta$ actually is, i.e. a distribution. Is there any way to assign such an integral expression a meaningful interpretation?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

In infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, one may not be lucky enough to have valid eigenvectors of operators. As an example, an eigenvector of the position operator on $L^{2}([0,1])$ is $|{x}\rangle$ which is not normalizable, and so cannot belong to the Hilbert space.

However, we can look for the next best thing, which is an approximate eigenvector. In the context of our example, we may look for a subspace of vectors supported on a tiny interval $[x,x+ \epsilon] \subset [0,1]$ such that $X|{x}\rangle \approx x |{x}\rangle$. For bounded observables, we may collect such subspaces into a projection-valued measure $\{E_{x}\}$.

By the spectral theorem for bounded self-adjoint operators, we may write the observable in terms of an integral over this projection-valued measure $X= \int_{\sigma(X)} x dE_{x}$, where $\sigma(X)$ is the spectrum of $X$. Comparison between this formula and standard quantum mechanics textbooks identifies $dE_{x}$ as $|x\rangle \langle x|dx$.

Thus, the "formal" looking integrations you quote result from inserting a resolution of the identity $I = \int_{\sigma(X)} dE_{x} = \int_{\sigma(X)} |x\rangle \langle x|dx$ so that $|\psi\rangle = \int dE_{x} |\psi\rangle = \int \langle x | \psi \rangle |x\rangle dx$. In terms of interpretation, each $dE_{x}$ projects the state $|\psi\rangle$ onto a subspace of approximate eigenvectors for $X$, and so integrating over all such subspaces recovers the total state.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks! this sounds like the answer I was looking for! I will study it and possibly get back to you if you don't mind. $\endgroup$
    – Tere_TX
    Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ I think I got the general picture. Can you please elaborate a bit more on your sentence : "Comparison between this formula and standard quantum mechanics textbooks identifies $dE_{x}$ as $|x\rangle \langle x|dx$." Or perhaps address me to some source where I can learn more about this? $\endgroup$
    – Tere_TX
    Commented Jan 4, 2022 at 8:08
  • $\begingroup$ The elements of the projection-valued measure are self-adjoint projectors in the Hilbert space onto the "approximate" eigenspaces of an operator like $X$. These are of the form $P_{x}= |x\rangle \langle x|$, where $P_{x}^{2}= P_{x}$. That's why we make $dE_{x}$ more explicit by writing $dE_{x} = P_{x} dx$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 4, 2022 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, it makes sense. I am a complete amateur in the field, so I realise that my question was probably naive- I appreciate the help $\endgroup$
    – Tere_TX
    Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 6:41

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.