Adjoint Operator: Use & Benefits

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KFC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use and properties of adjoint operators in quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on how operators act on bra and ket states. Participants explore the implications of self-adjoint operators and the relationships between different expressions involving adjoints.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the adjoint of an operator must be used when it operates on a bra state, suggesting that the adjoint is necessary unless the operator is self-adjoint.
  • Another participant asserts that the operator can act on either the ket or the bra, depending on the context, and emphasizes that the adjoint operator acts on the bra state.
  • Some participants discuss the equivalence of expressions involving operators acting on bra and ket states, highlighting that the adjoint operator can be used to switch the action from one state to another.
  • There are references to the mathematical properties of operators, including the implications of self-adjointness and how it affects the operation on states.
  • One participant introduces a general analogy with functions and matrix arithmetic to illustrate the flexibility in the order of operations.
  • Another participant provides a detailed derivation involving eigenstates and adjoint operators, suggesting a method for interpreting expressions involving bra-ket notation.
  • Some participants express confusion about the implications of the adjoint operator and seek clarification on how to interpret certain expressions correctly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the necessity of using the adjoint operator when operating on bra states, as participants present differing views on the conditions under which it is required. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of certain expressions and the implications of self-adjoint operators.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and properties of adjoint operators, particularly in relation to self-adjointness and the implications for bra and ket states. There are also references to specific mathematical steps that remain unresolved.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
For an opeation as follow

[tex]\langle \varphi | \hat{A} |\psi\rangle[/tex]

where [tex]\hat{A}[/tex] is an operator.

It is no problem to have [tex]\hat{A}[/tex] directly operate on the ket state [tex]|\psi\rangle[/tex], but if I want [tex]\hat{A}[/tex] operates on the bra state [tex]\langle\varphi |[/tex], do I have to take the adjoint of A first? That is

[tex]\left(\langle \varphi | \hat{A}^\dagger\right) |\psi\rangle = \langle \varphi | \left(\hat{A} |\psi\rangle\right)[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Lose the that dagger on the left-hand side. Se #7 in this thread. (In particular the stuff I quoted from another thread).
 
Last edited:
Fredrik said:
No. Lose the that dagger on the left-hand side. Se #7 in this thread. (In particular the stuff I quoted from another thread).

So, as you told in that thread. For

[tex]{\Large\langle\varphi | A | \psi \rangle}[/tex]

the opreator A can either operate on [tex]\psi[/tex] or [tex]\varphi[/tex] ?
 
Think of it this way, A acts on the thing to the right while [tex]A^{\dagger}[/tex] acts on the thing to the left. If you want to operate on the bra-state [tex]\langle \phi |[/tex] then you do need [tex]A^{\dagger}[/tex] unless A is self adjoint, in which case [tex]A = A^{\dagger}[/tex] and the operator can act either to the left or the right.

If A is some observable then it must be self-adjoint.
 
fractal_uk said:
Think of it this way, A acts on the thing to the right while [tex]A^{\dagger}[/tex] acts on the thing to the left. If you want to operate on the bra-state [tex]\langle \phi |[/tex] then you do need [tex]A^{\dagger}[/tex] unless A is self adjoint, in which case [tex]A = A^{\dagger}[/tex] and the operator can act either to the left or the right.

If A is some observable then it must be self-adjoint.

Got it. In this sense, the following conclusion only true when [tex]A^\dagger = A[/tex], right? That is, if operator A is self-adjoint, it can either operate on the left or the right?

[tex]\left(\langle \varphi | \hat{A}^\dagger\right) |\psi\rangle = \langle \varphi | \left(\hat{A} |\psi\rangle\right)[/tex]
 
This is nothing new, nor special. Think about any functions at all:
[tex]f(g(x)) = (f \circ g)(x)[/tex]
i.e. both of these give the same result:
1. Evaluating g at x, then evaluating f at the result
2. Composing f and g, and evaluating the result at x

And similarly, think about matrix arithmetic. I can evaluate the product wAv in any order I choose.
 
KFC said:
So, as you told in that thread. For

[tex]{\Large\langle\varphi | A | \psi \rangle}[/tex]

the opreator A can either operate on [tex]\psi[/tex] or [tex]\varphi[/tex] ?
I suppose you can say that, if you mean [itex]|\psi\rangle[/itex] and [itex]\langle\varphi|[/itex].

The expression [itex]\langle\varphi|A|\psi\rangle[/itex] means [itex]\langle\varphi|(A|\psi\rangle)[/itex], and by definition of the bra, that's the scalar product of [itex]|\varphi\rangle[/itex] and [itex]A|\psi\rangle[/itex]. By definition of the adjoint operator, that scalar product is equal to the scalar product of [itex]A^\dagger|\varphi\rangle[/itex] and [itex]|\psi\rangle[/itex], which in bra-ket notation takes the form [itex](\langle\varphi|A)|\psi\rangle)[/itex]. That's why you can drop the parentheses.


fractal_uk said:
Think of it this way, A acts on the thing to the right while [tex]A^{\dagger}[/tex] acts on the thing to the left.
I don't see a way to interpret this as a correct statement.


KFC said:
Got it. In this sense, the following conclusion only true when [tex]A^\dagger = A[/tex], right? That is, if operator A is self-adjoint, it can either operate on the left or the right?

[tex]\left(\langle \varphi | \hat{A}^\dagger\right) |\psi\rangle = \langle \varphi | \left(\hat{A} |\psi\rangle\right)[/tex]
Any operator X satisfies [itex]\langle\varphi|(X|\psi\rangle)[/itex]=[itex](\langle\varphi|X)|\psi\rangle[/itex], so yes, your equation is correct for all [itex]\langle\varphi|[/itex] and [itex]|\psi\rangle[/itex] if and only if A is self-adjoint, but I don't see why you would want to express that as "if operator A is self-adjoint, it can either operate on the left or the right".
 
Last edited:
Oh, there are too many comments here. It becomes more confusing. Fredrik, could you please ask me the following questions again. I read the thread you post and now let's start from

[tex]\langle f | A | g \rangle = (|f\rangle, A|g\rangle) = (A|g\rangle, |f\rangle)^* = \langle g | A^\dagger | f \rangle ^*[/tex]

Is this right? In this case (A might not btself-adjoint), [tex]A^\dagger[/tex] should operate to the left or right?


My second question is : assuming [tex]A^\dagger[/tex] still operates to the right, considering the last term in above equation

[tex]\langle g | A^\dagger | f \rangle ^* = (|g\rangle, A^\dagger | f \rangle)^* = \left((A^\dagger | f \rangle, |g\rangle)^*\right)^* = (A^\dagger | f \rangle, |g\rangle)[/tex]

Can we interpret [tex]\langle f | A | g \rangle[/tex] in this way? Firstly, let [tex]A^\dagger[/tex] operates to the ket [tex]|f\rangle[/tex] and then take the inner product with the ket [tex]|g\rangle[/tex], right? In a word, if I want an operator operates to a bra [tex]\langle f|[/tex], I can have its corresponding adjoint operator acting on the corresponding ket [tex]|f\rangle[/tex] to get another ket, after I get the result, I convert that ket back to a corresponding bra, is that right?

I am asking this question because sometimes I got an expression like [tex]\langle f | A | g \rangle[/tex], I need to keep [tex]|g\rangle[/tex] unchanged while I've already know the eigenvalue problem [tex]A|f\rangle[/tex], that's why I am asking how to make A operate to the left.
 
Suppose that [itex]A|a\rangle=a|a\rangle[/itex], then what is [itex]A^\dagger|a\rangle[/itex]? Let's find out:

[tex]A^\dagger|a\rangle=\sum_{a'}|a'\rangle\langle a'|A^\dagger|a\rangle[/tex]

[tex]\langle a'|A^\dagger|a\rangle=(|a'\rangle,A^\dagger|a\rangle)=(A|a'\rangle,|a\rangle)=(a'|a'\rangle,|a\rangle)=a'^*(|a'\rangle,|a\rangle)=a'^*\delta_{a'a}[/tex]

[tex]A^\dagger|a\rangle=\sum_{a'}|a'\rangle a'^*\delta_{a'a}=a^*|a\rangle[/tex]

You can use this to find out what you should do when the eigenstate appears in the form of a bra on the left.

[tex]\langle a|A|b\rangle=(|a\rangle,A|b\rangle)=(A^\dagger|a\rangle,|b\rangle)=(a^*|a\rangle,|b\rangle)=a(|a\rangle,|b\rangle)=a\langle a|b\rangle[/tex]

Note that there's no need to ever talk about an operator acting to the left. We don't have to define the "product" of a bra and an operator, but we do it anyway because it's convenient. We can define [itex]\langle f|A[/itex] either by

[tex](\langle f|A)|g\rangle=\langle f|(A|g\rangle)[/tex]

or (equivalently) by

[tex](\langle f|A)|g\rangle=(A^\dagger |f\rangle, |g\rangle)[/tex]

This definition allows us to interpret the previous result as

[tex]\langle a|A=\langle a|a[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Fredrik said:
Suppose that [itex]A|a\rangle=a|a\rangle[/itex], then what is [itex]A^\dagger|a\rangle[/itex]? Let's find out:

[tex]A^\dagger|a\rangle=\sum_{a'}|a'\rangle\langle a'|A^\dagger|a\rangle[/tex]

[tex]\langle a'|A^\dagger|a\rangle=(|a'\rangle,A^\dagger|a\rangle)=(A|a'\rangle,|a\rangle)=(a'|a'\rangle,|a\rangle)=a'^*(|a'\rangle,|a\rangle)=a'^*\delta_{a'a}[/tex]

[tex]A^\dagger|a\rangle=\sum_{a'}|a'\rangle a'^*\delta_{a'a}=a^*|a\rangle[/tex]

You can use this to find out what you should do when the eigenstate appears in the form of a bra on the left.

[tex]\langle a|A|b\rangle=(|a\rangle,A|b\rangle)=(A\dagger|a\rangle,|b\rangle)=(a^*|a\rangle,|b\rangle)=a(|a\rangle,|b\rangle)=a\langle a|b\rangle[/tex]

Note that there's no need to ever talk about an operator acting to the left. We don't have to define the "product" of a bra and an operator, but we do it anyway because it's convenient. We can define [itex]\langle f|A[/itex] either by

[tex](\langle f|A)|g\rangle=\langle f|(A|g\rangle)[/tex]

or (equivalently) by

[tex](\langle f|A)|g\rangle=(A^\dagger f, |g\rangle)[/tex]

This definition allows us to interpret the previous result as

[tex]\langle a|A=\langle a|a[/tex]

Got you. Thank you so much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
641
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K