Commutators, mutual eigenkets, and observables

  • #1
1,728
13
I have two quick questions:

1. Why if say [x,y] = 0, it implies that there is a mutual complete set of eigenkets?

where x and y can be anything, like momentum, position operators.


2. If an operator is not hermitian, why isn't it an observable? (More specifically, why isn't its eigenvalue an observable?)
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
178
17
1. Why if say [x,y] = 0, it implies that there is a mutual complete set of eigenkets?

where x and y can be anything, like momentum, position operators.
You can find a proof in Modern Quantum Mechanics by J. J. Sakurai, Chapter 1, Compatible observables.

2. If an operator is not hermitian, why isn't it an observable? (More specifically, why isn't its eigenvalue an observable?)
The term "Self-adjoint" must be used instead of "Hermitian".
It is a postulate of Quantum Mechanics. Unless you find an experiment violating this postulate, you must consider it to be true.

There is a theorem (Spectral Theorem) which says that the eigen-values of self-adjoint operators are all real (which is required for an observable outcome). Also, their eigenvectors form a complete set.
 
  • #3
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,360
456
a fast way (you may find also the answer in simultaneously diagonalization):
[itex] [x,y] |a> = xy |a> - yx|a> =0 [/itex]
I used the fact that they commute. So
[itex] xy|a>=yx|a> [/itex]
Suppose now that |a> is an eigenstate of y... then you have:
[itex] A_{y} x|a> = yx|a> [/itex]
so what we get?
[itex] y (x|a>)= A_{y} (x|a>)[/itex]
so [itex]x|a>[/itex] is eigenstate of y, with eigenvalue the same as [itex]|a>[/itex]
So we know that
[itex] x|a> \propto |a>[/itex]
So [itex] |a>[/itex] must also be eigenstate of x...


As for your other question, hermitian operators ensure that you'll find real eigenvalues.... In physics we are not used in observing i-s
 
  • #4
1,728
13
So we know that
[itex] x|a> \propto |a>[/itex]
So [itex] |a>[/itex] must also be eigenstate of x...


As for your other question, hermitian operators ensure that you'll find real eigenvalues.... In physics we are not used in observing i-s
I don't see how you can say ##x|a> \propto |a>## ??
 
  • #5
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,360
456
Because [itex] y|a>=A_{y}|a>[/itex]
 
  • #6
Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,851
412
I don't see how you can say ##x|a> \propto |a>## ??
This step is valid if the subspace that consists of all eigenvectors of y with eigenvalue ##A_y## is known to be 1-dimensional. This isn't true for an arbitrary y.
 
  • #7
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,360
456
then say that [itex]x|a> \propto |a'>[/itex]
then [itex] y(x|a>)= y|a'>= A'_{y} |a'>[/itex]
and only for [itex]A'_{y}=A_{y}[/itex] the above would hold? while it holds for every |a>?
 
  • #8
9,514
2,599
The following may help:
http://www.glue.umd.edu/afs/glue.umd.edu/department/phys/courses/Phys622/public_html/ji/lecture5.pdf

If there is no degeneracy (ie the eigenvalues are distinct) its easy AB |a> = BA |a> = Ba|a> = a B|a> so that B|a> is also an eigenvector of A with eigenvalue a. But since there is no degeneracy B|a> must be a multiple of |a> ie B|a> = b|a>.

When there is degeneracy things are more difficult - but the link gives the detail.

Physically though it's not hard - changing the eigenvalue simply changes the value of the observation outcome, so nothing physically really changes by altering the observables to be non degenerate to prove it, then changing back.

Thanks
Bill
 

Related Threads on Commutators, mutual eigenkets, and observables

Replies
1
Views
288
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
529
Replies
5
Views
688
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
9K
Top