Adjoint of an operator for particles

In summary, the conversation revolves around determining whether various operators are self-adjoint, anti-self-adjoint, or unitary, based on their adjoint properties. The first operator, xxp, is shown to be anti-self-adjoint through a series of calculations in the x-basis. The importance of order in multiplication and taking complex conjugates is emphasized.
  • #1
noblegas
268
0

Homework Statement



Let x be the position coordinate for a particle that moves in one dimension and let [tex]p=-i\hbar*d/dx[/tex] be the usual momentum operator . State whether each of the following operators is self-adjoint, anti-self-adjoint([tex]A^{\dagger}
=A[/tex] , unitary([tex] A^{\dagger}A=1[/tex], or, if none of the above , what the adjoint is:

xxp, xpx, xpp+ppx, d^2/dx^2 , d^3/dx^3,e^p

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I will perform the first operator xxp. [tex]p=-i\hbar*d/dx[/tex], therefore xxp=x^2*[tex]p=-i\hbar*d/dx[/tex]=2*x*[tex]-\hbar*i[/tex]? So would this operator be a self-adjointed one ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
That depends on whether it equals the adjoint. Compute the operator and its adjoint and see if they are equal or not. Remember that [itex](AB)^\dagger = B^\dagger A^\dagger[/itex].
noblegas said:
I will perform the first operator xxp. [tex]p=-i\hbar*d/dx[/tex], therefore xxp=x^2*[tex]p=-i\hbar*d/dx[/tex]=2*x*[tex]-\hbar*i[/tex]? So would this operator be a self-adjointed one ?
This is chaotic and probably false. Why would you state that [itex]xxp = -i \hbar \frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}x} [/itex], when p is [itex]-i \hbar \frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}x}[/itex]?
 
  • #3
noblegas said:

Homework Statement



Let x be the position coordinate for a particle that moves in one dimension and let [tex]p=-i\hbar*d/dx[/tex] be the usual momentum operator . State whether each of the following operators is self-adjoint, anti-self-adjoint([tex]A^{\dagger}
=A[/tex] , unitary([tex] A^{\dagger}A=1[/tex], or, if none of the above , what the adjoint is:

xxp, xpx, xpp+ppx, d^2/dx^2 , d^3/dx^3,e^p

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I will perform the first operator xxp. [tex]p=-i\hbar*d/dx[/tex], therefore xxp=x^2*[tex]p=-i\hbar*d/dx[/tex]=2*x*[tex]-\hbar*i[/tex]? So would this operator be a self-adjointed one ?

First, this is incredibly sloppy notation. Usually one denotes operators with uppercase letters, and an operator's expansion into a certain basis (the x-basis in this case[/itex] is denoted with the symbol [itex]\to[/itex] instead of an equal sign. So, [itex]P\to -i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}[/itex] and [itex]X\to x[/itex] in the x-basis.

Second, the order of multiplication between operators is important (sound familiar?).

[tex]XXP\to x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\neq \left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)x^2[/tex]

To determine the nature of its adjoint, you might consider actually computing the adjoint!:wink:...In the x-basis, you have:

[tex](XXP)^{\dagger}\to \left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}[/tex]
 
  • #4
gabbagabbahey said:
First, this is incredibly sloppy notation. Usually one denotes operators with uppercase letters, and an operator's expansion into a certain basis (the x-basis in this case[/itex] is denoted with the symbol [itex]\to[/itex] instead of an equal sign. So, [itex]P\to -i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}[/itex] and [itex]X\to x[/itex] in the x-basis.

Second, the order of multiplication between operators is important (sound familiar?).

[tex]XXP\to x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\neq \left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)x^2[/tex]

To determine the nature of its adjoint, you might consider actually computing the adjoint!:wink:...In the x-basis, you have:

[tex](XXP)^{\dagger}\to \left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}[/tex]

would I need to prove(or disprove) that [tex] (xxp)^{\dagger}=(xxp),xxp*(xxp)^{\dagger}=1, , and (xxp)^{\dagger}=-(xxp)[/tex]
 
  • #5
Well, it turns out that [itex]XXP[/itex] is anti-self-adjoint...to show that, just calculate [tex]\left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}[/tex] and compare it to the x-basis representation of [itex]XXP[/itex]...
 
  • #6
gabbagabbahey said:
Well, it turns out that [itex]XXP[/itex] is anti-self-adjoint...to show that, just calculate [tex]\left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}[/tex] and compare it to the x-basis representation of [itex]XXP[/itex]...


[tex]xxp^{\dagger}=(-i\hbar*d/dx)^{\dagger}*x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}=xxp, since x=x^{/dagger}, p=p^{/dagger} [/tex]; If PF doesn't display my Latex code properly, Here is the code I was orginally trying to translate through Latex xxp^{\dagger}=(-i\hbar*d/dx)^{\dagger}*x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}=xxp, since x=x^{/dagger}, p=p^{/dagger}
 
  • #7
[itex]P\neq P^{\dagger}[/itex]...why would you think that they were equal?

And again, order is important (drill that into your head):

[tex](XXP)^{\dagger}\to \left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}=x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)^{\dagger}\neq\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}[/tex]

The [itex]\dagger[/itex] symbol tells you to take the complex conjugate transpose of each quantity...so do just that! The quantities [itex]x[/itex] and [itex]-i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}[/itex] are scalars, so taking their transpose is trivial...but what about their complex conjugates?
 
  • #8
gabbagabbahey said:
[itex]P\neq P^{\dagger}[/itex]...why would you think that they were equal?

And again, order is important (drill that into your head):

[tex](XXP)^{\dagger}\to \left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}=x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)^{\dagger}\neq\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}[/tex]

The [itex]\dagger[/itex] symbol tells you to take the complex conjugate transpose of each quantity...so do just that! The quantities [itex]x[/itex] and [itex]-i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}[/itex] are scalars, so taking their transpose is trivial...but what about their complex conjugates?

But according to my textbook[tex](AB)^{\dagger} =(B)^{\dagger}A^{\dagger}[/tex] so therefore [tex](xxp)^{\dagger}=p^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}[/tex] so I don't understand why my expression would be in correct and don't understand why you think your expression is correct
 
  • #9
noblegas said:
But according to my textbook[tex](AB)^{\dagger} =(B)^{\dagger}A^{\dagger}[/tex] so therefore [tex](xxp)^{\dagger}=p^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}[/tex] so I don't understand why my expression would be in correct and don't understand why you think your expression is correct

Yes, sorry , my mistake.

[tex](XXP)^{\dagger}\to \left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}=\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}[/tex]

but my other two comments still stand.
 
  • #10
gabbagabbahey said:
Yes, sorry , my mistake.

[tex](XXP)^{\dagger}\to \left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}=\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}[/tex]

but my other two comments still stand.

I am kinda of confused because my book(Peebles) gives two definitions for a self-adjoint operator. [tex]Q^{\dagger}=Q[/tex] and the other definition is [tex]c^{\dagger}=c*[/tex] where c* represent the adjoint of ca complex conjugate. For the latter case, the x matrices will not change since they are real numbers and contain no imaginary terms right?
 
  • #11
An operator adjoint to A in a Hilbert space with the product [itex]\langle \ldots;\ldots \rangle[/itex] is an operator B such that for all vectors [itex]\varphi,\psi[/itex]:

[itex]\langle \varphi; A \psi \rangle = \langle B\varphi; \psi \rangle[/itex]

(You can try writing this out in x-representation.)
 
  • #12
Preno said:
An operator adjoint to A in a Hilbert space with the product [itex]\langle \ldots;\ldots \rangle[/itex] is an operator B such that for all vectors [itex]\varphi,\psi[/itex]:

[itex]\langle \varphi; A \psi \rangle = \langle B\varphi; \psi \rangle[/itex]

(You can try writing this out in x-representation.)

[tex](XXP)^{\dagger}\to \left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}=\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger }=\left(i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}\right)x*x=2*i\hbar*x[/tex] since by definition, [tex]c=c*[/tex]
 
  • #13
noblegas said:
I am kinda of confused because my book(Peebles) gives two definitions for a self-adjoint operator. [tex]Q^{\dagger}=Q[/tex] and the other definition is [tex]c^{\dagger}=c*[/tex] where c* represent the adjoint of ca complex conjugate. For the latter case, the x matrices will not change since they are real numbers and contain no imaginary terms right?

[itex]Q^{\dagger}=Q[/itex] is the definition of a self-adjoint operator.

[itex]c^{\dagger}=c^{*}[/itex] just tells you how to take the adjoint of a complex scalar [itex]c[/itex]. (The fact that [itex]c[/itex] is a scalar tells you [itex]c^{T}=c[/itex], so you don't need to worry about the transpose, just the complex conjugation). [itex]x[/itex] is such a scalar,and is also real valued, so [itex]x^{\dagger}=x^{*}=x[/itex]

noblegas said:
[tex](XXP)^{\dagger}\to \left[x^2\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)\right]^{\dagger}=\left(-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\right)^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}x^{\dagger }=\left(i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}\right)x*x=2*i\hbar*x[/tex] since by definition, [tex]c=c*[/tex]

Right, [itex](XXP)^{\dagger}=2i\hbar x[/itex]...does that equal [itex]XXP[/itex]? does it equal [itex]-XXP[/itex]? Does the product [itex](XXP)(XXP)^{\dagger}[/itex] equal the identity operator?
 
  • #14
gabbagabbahey said:
[itex]Q^{\dagger}=Q[/itex] is the definition of a self-adjoint operator.

[itex]c^{\dagger}=c^{*}[/itex] just tells you how to take the adjoint of a complex scalar [itex]c[/itex]. (The fact that [itex]c[/itex] is a scalar tells you [itex]c^{T}=c[/itex], so you don't need to worry about the transpose, just the complex conjugation). [itex]x[/itex] is such a scalar,and is also real valued, so [itex]x^{\dagger}=x^{*}=x[/itex]
Right, [itex](XXP)^{\dagger}=2i\hbar x[/itex]...does that equal [itex]XXP[/itex]? does it equal [itex]-XXP[/itex]
?
no.
Does the product [itex](XXP)(XXP)^{\dagger}[/itex] equal the identity operator?
[tex]XXP(XXP)^{\dagger}=X^2*(-i\hbar*d/dx)2i\hbar x\neq\leftI[/tex] , i.e. not equal to the identity.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Right, so [itex]XXP[/itex] is neither self-adjoint, anti-self-adjoint or unitary.

Now move on to the rest of the operators in your question...
 
  • #16
gabbagabbahey said:
Right, so [itex]XXP[/itex] is neither self-adjoint, anti-self-adjoint or unitary.

Now move on to the rest of the operators in your question...

[tex](xpp+ppx)^{\dagger}=(xpp)^{\dagger}+{ppx}^{\dagger}=p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}+x^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}[/tex]. [tex]p^{\dagger}=p*,x^{\dagger}=x. (i*\hbar*d/dx)(-i*\hbar)+x(\hbar)^2*d^2/dx^2=0+0[/tex] Therefore, there it is neither

[tex](xpx)^{\dagger}=x^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}x^{\dagger). xpx=x(-i*\hbar*d/dx)x=-xi\hbar.(xpx)^{\dagger}=x(i*\hbar*d/dx)x=xi\hbar[/tex]. Therefore, operator is anti-self-adjoint.

[tex]e^p=e^(-i*\hbar*d/dx). (e^p)^{\dagger)=e^(i*\hbar*d/dx). (e^p)(e^p)^{\dagger}=e^0=1[/tex]. Therefore, [tex]e^p[/tex] is unitary. not sure how to prove how [tex] d^2/dx^2[\tex] and [tex] d^3/dx^3 [/tex] are adjoint, anti-self-adjoint or unitary.
 
  • #17
noblegas said:
[tex](xpp+ppx)^{\dagger}=(xpp)^{\dagger}+{ppx}^{\dagger}=p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}+x^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}[/tex]. [tex]p^{\dagger}=p*,x^{\dagger}=x. (i*\hbar*d/dx)(-i*\hbar)+x(\hbar)^2*d^2/dx^2=0+0[/tex] Therefore, there it is neither

[itex](xpp+ppx)^{\dagger}=(xpp)^{\dagger}+(ppx)^{\dagger}=p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}+x^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}[/itex] is correct, but I'm not sure what you're doing after that. (Your [itex]\LaTeX[/itex] is very messy!)

Just use [itex]x^{\dagger}=x[/itex] (since [itex]x[/itex] is a real valued scalar) and [itex]p^{\dagger}=-p[/itex] (Since [itex]\left[-i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}\right]^{\dagger}=i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}[/itex] )

That gives you,

[tex](xpp+ppx)^{\dagger}=p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}+x^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}=(-p)(-p)x+x(-p)(-p)=ppx+xpp[/tex]
 
  • #18
gabbagabbahey said:
[itex](xpp+ppx)^{\dagger}=(xpp)^{\dagger}+(ppx)^{\dagger}=p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}+x^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}[/itex] is correct, but I'm not sure what you're doing after that. (Your [itex]\LaTeX[/itex] is very messy!)

Just use [itex]x^{\dagger}=x[/itex] (since [itex]x[/itex] is a real valued scalar) and [itex]p^{\dagger}=-p[/itex] (Since [itex]\left[-i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}\right]^{\dagger}=i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}[/itex] )

That gives you,

[tex](xpp+ppx)^{\dagger}=p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}+x^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}p^{\dagger}=(-p)(-p)x+x(-p)(-p)=ppx+xpp[/tex]

[tex]
e^p=e^(p). (e^p)^{\dagger)=1? since p^{dagger}=-p, then (e^p)(e^-p)^{\dagger}=e^0=1
[/tex] Therefore , [tex]e^p[/tex] is unitary
Don't know how o show whether or not [tex] d^2/dx^2[/tex] or [tex] d^3/dx^3[/tex] is adjoint, self-adjoint ,unitary , or neither
 
  • #19
noblegas said:
[tex]
e^p=e^(p). (e^p)^{\dagger)=1? since p^{dagger}=-p, then (e^p)(e^-p)^{\dagger}=e^0=1
[/tex] Therefore , [tex]e^p[/tex] is unitary

Let's see,

[tex](e^p)^{\dagger}=\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{p^n}{n!}\right)^{\dagger}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(p^n)^{\dagger}}{n!}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(p^{\dagger})^n}{n!}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-p)^n}{n!}=e^{-p}[/tex]

So yes, I would say [itex]e^{p}[/itex] is unitary.

Don't know how to show whether or not [tex] d^2/dx^2[/tex] or [tex] d^3/dx^3[/tex] is adjoint, self-adjoint ,unitary , or neither

I'd start by defining the operator [itex]D\leftrightarrow\frac{d}{dx}[/itex], then [itex]\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\leftrightarrow D^2=DD[/itex], then just apply the same reasoning as before.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
gabbagabbahey said:
Let's see,

[tex](e^p)^{\dagger}=\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{p^n}{n!}\right)^{\dagger}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(p^n)^{\dagger}}{n!}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(p^{\dagger})^n}{n!}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-p)^n}{n!}=e^{-p}[/tex]

So yes, I would say [itex]e^{p}[/itex] is unitary.
I'd start by defining the operator [itex]D\leftrightarrow\frac{d}{dx}[/itex], then [itex]\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\leftrightarrow D^2=DD[/itex], then just apply the same reasoning as before.

i.e. show that [tex]D^{\dagger}=D[/tex] and [tex](D^2)^{\dagger}=D^{\dagger}D^{\dagger}[/tex]?
 
  • #21
noblegas said:
i.e. show that [tex]D^{\dagger}=D[/tex] and [tex](D^2)^{\dagger}=D^{\dagger}D^{\dagger}[/tex]?

Yes.
 
  • #22
gabbagabbahey said:
Yes.

[tex] D=d/dx=> (D)^{\dagger}=(d/dx)^{\dagger} =d/dx[/tex]

[tex] (D^2)^{\dagger}=(DD)^{\dagger}=D^{\dagger}D^{\dagger} =(d/dx)^{\dagger}(d/dx)^{\dagger}, [/tex]. Since d/dx has no imaginary conjugate[tex] (d/dx)^{\dagger}(d/dx)^{\dagger}=(d/dx)(d/dx)=d^2/dx^2[/tex]
 
  • #23
Right, so [itex](D^2)^{\dagger}=D^2[/itex] and hence, [itex]\frac{d^2}{dx^2}[/itex] is self-adjoint.
 

What is the adjoint of an operator for particles?

The adjoint of an operator for particles is a mathematical concept used in quantum mechanics to describe the relationship between a particle and its corresponding operator. It is a linear operator that is defined by the inner product of two vectors, and it is used to calculate the probability of a particle being in a certain state.

How is the adjoint of an operator for particles calculated?

The adjoint of an operator for particles is calculated by taking the transpose of the operator and then taking the complex conjugate of each element in the matrix. This results in a new operator that is the adjoint of the original operator.

What is the significance of the adjoint of an operator for particles?

The adjoint of an operator for particles is significant because it allows us to calculate the probability of a particle being in a certain state. It also helps us understand the relationship between a particle and its corresponding operator, and how they are related to each other.

What is the difference between the adjoint and the transpose of an operator for particles?

The adjoint of an operator for particles is different from the transpose because it involves taking the complex conjugate of each element in the matrix. The transpose, on the other hand, only involves flipping the rows and columns of the matrix.

How is the adjoint of an operator for particles related to Hermitian operators?

The adjoint of an operator for particles is related to Hermitian operators because a Hermitian operator is its own adjoint. This means that the adjoint of a Hermitian operator is equal to the original operator, which is a property that is important in quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
555
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
880
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
793
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
909
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
292
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
4K
Back
Top