Is Dirac Notation Appropriate for Proving Hermitian Conjugates of Operators?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter natski
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hermitian
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the appropriateness of Dirac notation for proving the Hermitian conjugates of operators, specifically the relationship between the product of two operators P and Q and their Hermitian conjugate Q*P*. Participants argue that Dirac notation complicates the proof process, suggesting that it is more beneficial to use alternative notations for clarity. The equation defining the Hermitian conjugate, =, is highlighted as being clearer in conventional notation compared to Dirac notation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hermitian operators and their properties
  • Familiarity with Dirac notation and its applications
  • Knowledge of linear algebra concepts, particularly operator theory
  • Basic grasp of quantum mechanics principles
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about alternative notations for operator proofs
  • Explore the implications of operator associativity in linear algebra
  • Examine examples of Hermitian conjugates in various contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in quantum mechanics, mathematicians focusing on linear algebra, and anyone involved in theoretical physics who seeks clarity in operator proofs.

natski
Messages
262
Reaction score
2
This didn't seem appropriate for College level so I thought I'd post it here. I'm struggling to find a way to prove that the product of two operators P and Q written PQ have the hermitian conjugate Q*P* where the star denotes hermitian conjugate. Really just can't get off the first line with it. Any help would be a appreciated.

Natski
 
Physics news on Phys.org
<PQx,y> = <Qx,P*y>

the rest is left as an exercise for the reader...
 
As you can see the problem is trivial if you're using the notation that Matt's using. Maybe the problem is that you're using Dirac notation. The Dirac notation isn't very good when you're trying to prove things like this. Actually, you have to prove a bunch of "things like this" to understand why the Dirac notation even makes sense.

Note that the equation that defines the Hermitean conjugate is just <P*x,y>=<x,Py> in the notation that Matt's using. In Dirac notation (with |x> instead of x, and |y> instead of y), this equation takes the form (<x|P) |y>=<x| (P|y>), which looks more like an associativity rule than anything else.

If you don't understand exactly why this is so (and probably even if you do), it's better to stay away from the Dirac notation when you're doing proofs.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K