- #1
Brad Barker
- 429
- 0
hey, it's good to be back at pf.
anyway, today i had an exam in my honors modern course, and one of the questions was a proof that the parity operator is hermitian. i don't think i got it right. :/
here's what i did:
1:
[tex]
\int(P_(op) \psi_2(x))^* \psi_1(x) dx
= \int \psi_2^*(-x) \psi_1(x) dx. [/tex]
and
2:
[tex]
\int \psi_2^*(x) P_(op) \psi_1(x) dx
= \int \psi_2^*(x) \psi_1(-x)dx. [/tex]But... that doesn't really get me anywhere. if (1) equaled (2), then i'd be satisfied, but... it doesn't appear that this is the case.so how would you have gone about this?
anyway, today i had an exam in my honors modern course, and one of the questions was a proof that the parity operator is hermitian. i don't think i got it right. :/
here's what i did:
1:
[tex]
\int(P_(op) \psi_2(x))^* \psi_1(x) dx
= \int \psi_2^*(-x) \psi_1(x) dx. [/tex]
and
2:
[tex]
\int \psi_2^*(x) P_(op) \psi_1(x) dx
= \int \psi_2^*(x) \psi_1(-x)dx. [/tex]But... that doesn't really get me anywhere. if (1) equaled (2), then i'd be satisfied, but... it doesn't appear that this is the case.so how would you have gone about this?
Last edited: