Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the notation and interpretation of expectation values in quantum mechanics, particularly when dealing with linear operators that are not Hermitian. Participants explore how to express expectation values for operators like A² and A³, and whether the notation used can lead to ambiguity.
Discussion Character
- Technical explanation
- Conceptual clarification
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- Some participants question the ambiguity in writing the expectation value of A² as < ψ | A² | ψ > versus < ψ | AA | ψ >, suggesting that the notation may not be clear.
- One participant, Dan, asserts that if A is not Hermitian, then AA does not equal A†A, indicating that the two forms cannot be used interchangeably.
- Another participant reiterates the method for calculating expectation values, emphasizing the need to specify the operator A before proceeding with calculations.
- A different viewpoint suggests that for a pure state, the expectation value can be expressed as < Ψ | f(A) | Ψ >, regardless of whether the operator is self-adjoint, although this raises questions about the validity of calling it an "expectation value" if the operator cannot represent an observable.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the clarity of the notation and the implications of using non-Hermitian operators. There is no consensus on whether the notation is ambiguous or on the appropriateness of calling certain expressions "expectation values."
Contextual Notes
Participants highlight that the discussion is limited by the lack of specification regarding the operator A, which affects the ability to resolve the ambiguity in notation and the interpretation of expectation values.