Dirac Notation for Operators: Ambiguity in Expectation Values?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the ambiguity in the notation of expectation values for non-Hermitian linear operators in quantum mechanics. Specifically, when calculating the expectation value of \( A^2 \), it is expressed as \( \langle \psi | A^2 | \psi \rangle \) or \( \langle \psi | AA | \psi \rangle \). Participants clarify that if \( A \) is not Hermitian, then \( AA \neq A^{\dagger} A \), and thus the notation can lead to confusion. The correct approach involves calculating intermediate states such as \( | \phi \rangle = A | \psi \rangle \) before deriving the final expectation value.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear operators in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with Dirac notation and expectation values
  • Knowledge of Hermitian and non-Hermitian operators
  • Basic concepts of quantum states and state vectors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the implications of non-Hermitian operators on physical observables
  • Explore the calculation of expectation values for arbitrary functions of operators
  • Investigate the role of intermediate states in quantum mechanics calculations
USEFUL FOR

Quantum mechanics students, physicists, and researchers interested in operator theory and expectation values in quantum systems.

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
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark

Similar threads

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