I Dirac Notation for Operators: Ambiguity in Expectation Values?

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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top