-1
$\begingroup$

After finding formal definitions in various texts (see, eg, Witten, Notes On Some Entanglement Properties Of Quantum Field Theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 45003 (2018), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045003 arXiv:1803.04993), I have ($\text I$) not been able to obtain a good intuition for them and ($\text{II}_1$) have not seen anyone relate such factors to more commonly understood Hilbert spaces such as $L^2(\mathbb R)$. This is very likely for good reason, but it would be nice to have these ideas come down from the clouds so that one can present them to non-mathematicians and (maybe this is too ambitious) laypeople.

Some more technical sources which helped me answer this are here and here.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You say that you "have not seen anyone relate such factors to more commonly understood Hilbert spaces". This phrasing suggests you think that factors are examples of Hilbert spaces? If so, that is already a misconception $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Sep 11, 2020 at 0:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Moreover, it is not clear what "intuition" is supposed to mean here. What algebraic objects of a similar nature have you encountered? Obviously there is no point trying to say that two-one factors are analogues of simple groups, if you are not already familiar with results about simple groups. But if you are familiar with examples of simple and non-simple groups then one can start to explain what von Neumann factors are, and then one can try to say something about what makes two-one factors special $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Sep 11, 2020 at 0:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi one could be charitable and guess the OP meant how one could see $II_1$ factors as having canonical representations on certain Hilbert spaces arising from other known structures. But I agree it's not worded that way. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Sep 11, 2020 at 0:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts Fair enough. For what it's worth, I am not sure why the OP is linking to a paper of Witten as their example of a formal definition of a two-one factor. The Wikipedia page on von Neumann algebras is actually fairly good at leading up to the definition of a factor and then the classification result of Murray and von Neumann en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_algebra $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Sep 11, 2020 at 2:13
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I’m voting to close this question because not enough effort has been put in by the proposer. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 13, 2020 at 22:39

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Consider first the usual Fock space (countably $\infty$-dim vector space) whose basis states $|n\rangle$ are labeled by nonnegative integers $n\geq 0$. This space admits what are called minimal projections: matrices $|n\rangle\langle n|$ which serve as the fundamental building blocks of all matrices that are diagonal in this basis. These building blocks are trace one, and cannot be further divided into sums of two other projections which have lower trace. The presence of such minimal projections implies that any von Neumann algebra on this space is of Type I.

Now consider a tensor product space of $n$ qubits (the vector space $\mathbb{C}^2$) with $n$ being arbitrarily large, and with allowed operators acting nontrivially only on a finite subset of the qubits. Such a space does not admit a minimal projection. Consider a projection

$$ \Pi = |0\rangle\langle0|^{\otimes k}\otimes I^{\otimes (n-k)} $$

onto the basis state $|0\rangle\langle 0|$ for the first $k$ qubits and identity $I$ on the remaining $n-k$. The trace of this projection is $2^{n-k}$. It is not minimal because we can resolve the identity on the $k+1^{\text{st}}$ qubit and construct projections (with $\ell\in\{0,1\}$)

$$ \Pi_{\ell} = |0\rangle\langle0|^{\otimes k}\otimes |\ell\rangle\langle\ell|\otimes|0\rangle\langle0|^{\otimes (n-k-1)} $$

that have smaller trace and sum up to $\Pi$. The lack of a minimal projection makes this space a candidate for housing Type II factors.

This ability to always resolve identities of other qubits allows us to keep cutting up projections into finer and finer pieces. This difference between the two spaces reminds me of the fact that any positive real number can always be expressed as a sum of two other positive reals, while there exists an element of the integers (namely, $1$) that cannot be expressed as a sum of two positive integers.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Many of the mathematical definitions/concepts mentioned here are being used in ways that seem to differ from how an "orthodox" functional analyst would use them. For a start, any Hilbert space admits "minimal projections", they just might not be of the form that you are thinking of $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Sep 12, 2020 at 17:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ To maybe make more clear what Yemon Choi said already: There seems to be a crucial misunderstanding of the role of the Hilbert space. Whether or not there are minimal projections really depends on which projection you "choose" to belong to the von Neumann algebra, not which projections exist on the underlying Hilbert space. Of course there are $\text{II}_1$ factors that can be faithfully represented on the Fock space, in fact, every separable $\text{II}_1$ factor can. $\endgroup$
    – MaoWao
    Commented Sep 15, 2020 at 8:57
  • $\begingroup$ @MaoWao thanks, this helps. Let me see if I understand. One can embed the space of $n$-qubits into a $2^n$-dim Fock space, meaning that the above projections can also be constructed there. So one should not focus on the Hilbert space when constructing these various factors. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2020 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe this is helpful: arxiv.org/pdf/2302.01958 ? (In particular Section 4.) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 30 at 10:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .