Hermitian vs. self-adjoint operators

Click For Summary
Hermitian and self-adjoint operators are closely related concepts in functional analysis, with a key distinction for unbounded operators. A Hermitian operator is defined as a bounded self-adjoint operator, meaning all Hermitian operators are self-adjoint, but not all self-adjoint operators are Hermitian. The definitions vary between physicists and mathematicians, with some physicists using the terms interchangeably, while mathematicians emphasize the importance of domain considerations. For symmetric operators, they are self-adjoint if they have trivial deficiency indices, which is not always the case. Understanding these distinctions is crucial, especially in the context of quantum mechanics and the properties of physical observables.
Heirot
Messages
145
Reaction score
0
Hello,

what's the difference between Hermitian and self-adjoint operators? Our professor in Group Theory made a comment once that the two are very similar, but with a subtle distinction (which, of course, he failed to mention :smile: )

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oops... I found the answer. Sorry :redface:
 
Well, what's this subtle distinction?
 
Just make sure you're aware that it's a matter of convention. Most people use the two words to mean the same thing.
 
morphism said:
Most people use the two words to mean the same thing.

While this is true for bounded operators, all the books I have checked on my shelf make a distinction for unbounded operators. According to the books that I have checked, a Hermitian operator is a bounded self-adjoint operator, i.e., all Hermitian operators are self-adjoint, but not all self-adjoint operators are Hermitian.
 
George Jones said:
While this is true for bounded operators, all the books I have checked on my shelf make a distinction for unbounded operators. According to the books that I have checked, a Hermitian operator is a bounded self-adjoint operator, i.e., all Hermitian operators are self-adjoint, but not all self-adjoint operators are Hermitian.

Is this an example of the difference you are talking about, or is it yet another difference?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BerryConjecture.html:"...physicists define this operator to be Hermitian, mathematicians do not."
 
atyy said:
Is this an example of the difference you are talking about, or is it yet another difference?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BerryConjecture.html:"...physicists define this operator to be Hermitian, mathematicians do not."

Let A be a densely defined linear operator on a Hilbert space. One of the defining properties, *, for all cases is

\left<Ax,y\right> = \left<x,Ay\right>, \ *

where x and y are elements of the Hilbert space.

The text that was used for the functional analysis course that I took as a student makes the following definitions:

A is Hermitian if A is bounded and * is true for every x and y in the Hilbert space;

A is symmetric if * holds for for every x and y in the domain of A;

A is self-adjoint if A is symmetric and the domain of A equals the domain of A^\dagger.

According to these defintions, every Hermitian operator is and self-adjoint, but not all self-adjoint operators are Hemitian. Some books leave off the first definition and call symmetric operators Hermitian. Then, every self-adjoint operator is Hermitian, but not all Hermitian operators are self-adjoint.
MathWorld said:
Note that A is symmetric but might have nontrivial deficiency indices, so while physicists define this operator to be Hermitian, mathematicians do not.

A symmetric (or Hemitian, depending on the terminology used) operator is self-adjoint iff it has trivial deficiency indices. Some physicists and physics references do not distinguish between the above defintions, and use the terms Hermitian and self-adjoint interchangeably to refer to all cases.

If A is unbounded, then the Hilbert space is necessarily infinite-dimensional, and the domain of A need not be all of the Hilbert space. If this is the case and if A is symmetric, then the domain of A is a subset of the domain of A^\dagger, which I have not defined.

In physics, the canonical commutation relation is important. If self-adjoint operators A and B satisfy such a relation, then it is easy to show that at least one of the operators must be unbounded. Suppose it is A. The Hellinger-Toeplitz theorem states any linear operator that satisfies * for all elements of the Hilbert space must bounded. Since A is self-adjoint and unbounded, the domain of physical observable A cannot be all of Hilbert space!

For one consequence of these concepts, see

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=122063&highlight=dirac.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
I know, George you have to be the most interesting person i know, gosh gosh

"what are you going to do today napoleon?"
"whatever the frick i want to do gosh! gosh"
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
13K