{"title":"Are Hilbert Spaces Unphysical? Hardly, My Dear!","authors":"Nivaldo A. Lemos","doi":"10.1007/s10701-025-00858-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>It is widely accepted that the states of any quantum system are vectors in a Hilbert space. Not everyone agrees, however. The recent paper “The unphysicality of Hilbert spaces” by Carcassi, Calderón and Aidala is a thoughtful dissection of the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics that seeks to pinpoint supposedly unsurmountable difficulties inherent in postulating that the physical states are elements of a Hilbert space. Its pivotal charge against Hilbert spaces is that by a change of variables, which is a change-of-basis unitary transformation, one “can map states with finite expectation values to those with infinite ones”. In the present work it is shown that this statement is incorrect and the source of the error is spotted. In consequence, the purported example of a time evolution that makes “the expectation value oscillate from finite to infinite in finite time” is also faulty, and the assertion that Hilbert spaces “turn a potential infinity into an actual infinity” is unsubstantiated. Two other objections to Hilbert spaces on physical grounds, both technically correct, are the isomorphism of separable Hilbert spaces and the unavoidable existence of infinite-expectation-value states. The former turns out to be quite irrrelevant but the latter remains an issue without a fully satisfactory solution, although the evidence so far is that it is physically innocuous. All in all, while the authors’ thesis that Hilbert spaces must be given up deserves some attention, it is a long way from being persuasive as it is founded chiefly on a misconception and, subsidiarily, on immaterial or flimsy arguments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":569,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Physics","volume":"55 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Physics","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-025-00858-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
It is widely accepted that the states of any quantum system are vectors in a Hilbert space. Not everyone agrees, however. The recent paper “The unphysicality of Hilbert spaces” by Carcassi, Calderón and Aidala is a thoughtful dissection of the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics that seeks to pinpoint supposedly unsurmountable difficulties inherent in postulating that the physical states are elements of a Hilbert space. Its pivotal charge against Hilbert spaces is that by a change of variables, which is a change-of-basis unitary transformation, one “can map states with finite expectation values to those with infinite ones”. In the present work it is shown that this statement is incorrect and the source of the error is spotted. In consequence, the purported example of a time evolution that makes “the expectation value oscillate from finite to infinite in finite time” is also faulty, and the assertion that Hilbert spaces “turn a potential infinity into an actual infinity” is unsubstantiated. Two other objections to Hilbert spaces on physical grounds, both technically correct, are the isomorphism of separable Hilbert spaces and the unavoidable existence of infinite-expectation-value states. The former turns out to be quite irrrelevant but the latter remains an issue without a fully satisfactory solution, although the evidence so far is that it is physically innocuous. All in all, while the authors’ thesis that Hilbert spaces must be given up deserves some attention, it is a long way from being persuasive as it is founded chiefly on a misconception and, subsidiarily, on immaterial or flimsy arguments.
期刊介绍:
The conceptual foundations of physics have been under constant revision from the outset, and remain so today. Discussion of foundational issues has always been a major source of progress in science, on a par with empirical knowledge and mathematics. Examples include the debates on the nature of space and time involving Newton and later Einstein; on the nature of heat and of energy; on irreversibility and probability due to Boltzmann; on the nature of matter and observation measurement during the early days of quantum theory; on the meaning of renormalisation, and many others.
Today, insightful reflection on the conceptual structure utilised in our efforts to understand the physical world is of particular value, given the serious unsolved problems that are likely to demand, once again, modifications of the grammar of our scientific description of the physical world. The quantum properties of gravity, the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics, the primary source of irreversibility, the role of information in physics – all these are examples of questions about which science is still confused and whose solution may well demand more than skilled mathematics and new experiments.
Foundations of Physics is a privileged forum for discussing such foundational issues, open to physicists, cosmologists, philosophers and mathematicians. It is devoted to the conceptual bases of the fundamental theories of physics and cosmology, to their logical, methodological, and philosophical premises.
The journal welcomes papers on issues such as the foundations of special and general relativity, quantum theory, classical and quantum field theory, quantum gravity, unified theories, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, cosmology, and similar.