Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Eugene Stefanovich <eugenev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 06:27:14 +0000 (UTC)
Arnold Neumaier wrote:
However (returning to my simpler notation), the states |x_1:N> = |x_1,...,x_N> lie in the top part of the right Gelfand triple = rigged Hilbert space. This is the name for a triple H in Hbar in H^* of vector spaces, where Hbar is a Hilbert space, H a dense 'nuclear' subspace (containing very smooth states with very good behavior at infintity) and H^* its dual space (containing among others very singular states and states with very poor behavior at infintity). Observables (in the weak sense) are bilinear forms, or, which is the same, linear mappings from H to H^*. The adjoint of such a linear mapping is again an observable in the weak sense. Annihilation operators a(x) (and their adjoints a^*(x)) are observables in this weak sense, although they are not Hermitian (and a fortiori not self-adjoint).
Most physicists take it lightly since the times of Dirac. They don't bother about self-adjointness or any other functional analytic concept, unless ignoring it brings them into trouble.
Almost everything they do in the nonrelativistic regime can be made rigorous in the rigged Hilbert space, so they fare right even when they imagine wrongly that they work in a Hilbert space. Thus they get away with their bad practices. What they call 'Hilbert space' _is_ in fact always a rigged Hilbert space; they just don't know and don't care.
Why should they care? Is there a specific example where the rigged Hilbert space picture affects theoretical predictions that can be measured in experiment?
Eugene Stefanovich
.
- References:
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Hendrik van Hees
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Arnold Neumaier
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Igor Khavkine
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Arnold Neumaier
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Hendrik van Hees
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Arnold Neumaier
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Hendrik van Hees
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Arnold Neumaier
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- From: Arnold Neumaier
- Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- Prev by Date: Re: please help my confusion about particles and irreps.
- Next by Date: Re: upper/lower *theoretical* limits for photon wavelength
- Previous by thread: Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- Next by thread: Re: 10 questions on QM postulates
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading