Annihilation Operator Hermitian Without Adjoint Condition?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the annihilation operator in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing its hermiticity without relying on the standard adjoint condition.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to demonstrate the non-hermiticity of the annihilation operator by showing that it does not commute with the position operator. Some participants question the relevance of commuting properties to hermiticity and suggest examining the nature of eigenvalues instead.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the implications of eigenvalues related to the annihilation operator, with some noting that hermitian operators should have real eigenvalues. There is acknowledgment of a complex eigenvalue provided in the problem, which raises further questions about the operator's properties.

Contextual Notes

The original poster is constrained by the requirement to avoid using the standard definition of hermiticity involving adjoints, which influences the direction of the discussion.

n0_3sc
Messages
238
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



How do I show that the annihilation operator [tex]\hat{a}[/tex] is hermitian WITHOUT explicitly using the condition where an operator X is hermitian if its adjoint is also X ie. [tex]X=X^+[/tex]

Homework Equations



none.

The Attempt at a Solution



I could show [tex]\hat{a} \hat{x} \neq \hat{x} \hat{a}[/tex] where [tex]\hat{x}[/tex] is the position operator, but that only shows non-hermiticity for that one operator...
Is there a more elegant way to show non-hermiticity simply?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Commuting with operators doesn't have much to do with hermiticity. In the last problem you posted you found an eigenstate of the 'a' operator. What were it's eigenvalues like? Hermitian operators have real eigenvalues.
 
oh yes offcourse - the eigenvalue was real...stupid me. :biggrin:
 
The point is that the operator has eigenvalues that AREN'T real. Hope you misspoke.
 
yeah sorry I was meant to say: "...the eigenvalues are meant to be real..."

And the question did give a complex eigenvalue...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K