I Dirac Notation for Operators: Ambiguity in Expectation Values?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the ambiguity in writing expectation values for non-Hermitian operators in Dirac notation. It is clarified that for a linear operator A, the expectation value of A² can be expressed as <ψ|A²|ψ> or <ψ|AA|ψ>, but care must be taken since AA does not equal A†A when A is not Hermitian. Participants emphasize the necessity of calculating intermediate states when dealing with higher powers of A, such as A³. The conversation also touches on the implications of using non-Hermitian operators, noting that they cannot represent physical observables, which raises questions about the validity of calling these expressions "expectation values." Overall, the notation's ambiguity is acknowledged, particularly in the context of non-Hermitian operators.
dyn
Messages
774
Reaction score
63
Hi
If A is a linear operator but not Hermitian then the expectation value of A2 is written as < ψ | A2| ψ >. Now if i write A2 as AA then i have seen the expectation value written as < ψ | A+A| ψ > but if i only apply the operators to the ket , then could i not write it as < ψ | AA | ψ > ? In other words is the notation slightly ambiguous ?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dyn said:
Hi
If A is a linear operator but not Hermitian then the expectation value of A2 is written as < ψ | A2| ψ >. Now if i write A2 as AA then i have seen the expectation value written as < ψ | A+A| ψ > but if i only apply the operators to the ket , then could i not write it as < ψ | AA | ψ > ? In other words is the notation slightly ambiguous ?
Thanks
If A is not Hermitian, then ##AA \neq A^{\dagger} A##, so you can't write it that way.

-Dan
 
I might be confusing myself here but if A is not Hermitian and A2 = AA and A3 = AAA then how do i write the expectation values of these 2 quantities ?
 
dyn said:
I might be confusing myself here but if A is not Hermitian and A2 = AA and A3 = AAA then how do i write the expectation values of these 2 quantities ?
The same way you did in the OP:
##\langle A^2 \rangle = \langle \psi \mid A^2 \mid \psi \rangle \equiv \langle \psi \mid AA \mid \psi \rangle##

You would have to calculate ##\mid \phi \rangle = A \mid \psi \rangle##, then ##\mid \zeta \rangle = A \mid \phi \rangle##, then finally ##\langle \psi \mid \zeta \rangle##.

That's as far as you can go until you specify what the operator A looks like.

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and dyn
topsquark said:
The same way you did in the OP:
##\langle A^2 \rangle = \langle \psi \mid A^2 \mid \psi \rangle \equiv \langle \psi \mid AA \mid \psi \rangle##

You would have to calculate ##\mid \phi \rangle = A \mid \psi \rangle##, then ##\mid \zeta \rangle = A \mid \phi \rangle##, then finally ##\langle \psi \mid \zeta \rangle##.

That's as far as you can go until you specify what the operator A looks like.

-Dan
Alternatively, you can calculate
$$
\begin{align*}
\ket{\phi} &= A \ket{\psi} \\
\ket{\chi} &= A^\dagger \ket{\psi} \\
\braket{\psi | A^2 | \psi} &= \braket{\chi| \phi}
\end{align*}
$$
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark and malawi_glenn
dyn said:
I might be confusing myself here but if A is not Hermitian and A2 = AA and A3 = AAA then how do i write the expectation values of these 2 quantities ?
For a pure state, represented by a normalized vector ##|\Psi \rangle## expectation value is
$$\langle f(\hat{A}) = \langle \Psi|f(\hat{A}) \Psi \rangle=\langle f(\hat{A})^{\dagger} \Psi|\Psi \rangle,$$
for an arbitrary function ##f(\hat{A})##. It doesn't matter whether the operator is self-adjoint or not for the identity of the two expressions. Of course, such an operator cannot represent an observable to begin with, and you might argue that it doesn't make sense to call this expression an "expectation value" in the first place.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
4K