As I understand, a necessary and sufficient condition for a density matrix $P$ to be represented by a wavefunction $|\Psi\rangle$ is that it is idempotent, i.e. $P^2=P$. It is easy to see that if $P=|\Psi\rangle\langle \Psi|$ then $P$ is idempotent: $$ P^2=|\Psi\rangle\langle \Psi|\Psi\rangle\langle \Psi|=|\Psi\rangle\langle \Psi| $$ since by normalization $\langle \Psi|\Psi\rangle=1$. However, I have had trouble with the other direction - how can I show that if $P^2=P$ then $P=|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|$ for some $\Psi$?

I have been able to demonstrate that if $P^2=P$ then $$ P=\sum_{j} |\Psi_j\rangle\langle\Psi_j| $$ where the sum over $j$ has no more terms than the dimension of the density matrix $P$. My argument was analogous to the one found here. I suspect that I'm almost there - I think it's just a change of basis that I haven't seen yet. How can I complete this proof?


A density matrix $D$ is positive semidefinite, hermitian, and has trace one. Because of hermiticity we may assume that it is diagonal. Let's denote the eigenvalues with $\lambda_i$ . Because it is positive semidefinite, we have $0 \leq \lambda_i \leq 1$.

The matrix $D^2$ has eigenvalues $\lambda_i^2$. Since it is idempotent ($D = D^2$) and has trace one, we may write: $$\sum_i \lambda_i = \sum_i \lambda_i^2 = 1$$ The only possibility for this to be true is, if there is one and only one $j$ for which $\lambda_j = 1$.

So $D$ has one $1$ in the diagonal at the $j$-th column and all other values in the matrix are zero. You can easily represent this matrix with: $ e_j e_j^T$. ($e_j$ being the $j$-th unit vector.)

If you transform back to you original nondiagonal form, you obtain your $\Psi$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! I see what I was missing - the key had been in the defining properties of the density matrix. $\endgroup$ – BGreen Jun 29 '19 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ I think that what you have described is a pure state, a stationary state (eigenstate of the time-independent Schr. Eq.). However if you have a superposition or coherence then I don't think D would be reducible to the form you describe, or? $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Jun 30 '19 at 9:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you have no pure state, then D would not be idempotent. Because lambda would not equal lambda^2. $\endgroup$ – mcocdawc Jun 30 '19 at 9:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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