Expectation Value Notation in Griffiths QM Textbook Third Edition

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation used for expectation values in the third edition of Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, particularly in Chapter 3 where the uncertainty principle is derived. Participants explore the consistency and reasoning behind the use of operator notation for expectation values in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Griffiths typically uses the notation for expectation values but switches to operator notation in Chapter 3, questioning the reasoning behind this choice.
  • Others argue that Griffiths maintains consistency in his notation, although they acknowledge a lack of explanation for the specific use of operator notation for certain expectation values.
  • One participant suggests that the use of operator notation is a matter of author preference, while another highlights the common practice among physicists to use less precise notation.
  • Technical clarifications are provided regarding the relationship between observables and their corresponding operators, emphasizing that expectation values are of observables rather than operators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether Griffiths' notation is consistent or merely a matter of preference. There is no consensus on the reasoning behind the notation choices, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants point out that the notation used may reflect common practices in the field, which can sometimes lead to ambiguity in distinguishing between observables and their operators.

Icycub
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
In the 3rd edition of the Introduction to Quantum Mechanics textbook by Griffiths, he normally does the notation of the expectation value as <x> for example. But, in Chapter 3 when he derives the uncertainity principle, he keeps the operator notation in the expectation value. See the pasted page. I don't understand why he suddenly keeps the operator notation for the expectation value and for just one of the expectation values in the group below. Is there a physical reasoning for this or was it just author preference?
1603740187943.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Icycub said:
But, in Chapter 3 when he derives the uncertainity principle, he keeps the operator notation in the expectation value. See the pasted page. I don't understand why he suddenly keeps the operator notation for the expectation value and for just one of the expectation values in the group below.
I think he is quite consistent in his notation here. What would you propose ?
 
BvU said:
I think he is quite consistent in his notation here. What would you propose ?
Yes, he roughly follows the same notation except for the <A^B^>. He doesn't explain why he does that, I'm assuming it's just preference.
 
Icycub said:
Yes, he roughly follows the same notation except for the <A^B^>. He doesn't explain why he does that, I'm assuming it's just preference.
Technically, if we have an observable ##A##, represented by operator ##\hat A## and the system in state ##\psi##, then: ##\langle A \rangle## is the expected value of measurements of ##A## (for a system in state ##\psi##); and, ##\langle \hat A \rangle = \langle \psi |\hat A|\psi \rangle##.

And, of course, we have: ##\langle A \rangle = \langle \hat A \rangle##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
Yes, that's common practice of physicists' sloppy notation. If you are pedantic, the expectation values are of course expectation values of observables, not operators, but the operators are of course used to describe observables in quantum mechanics. The correct notation is
$$\langle A \rangle=\langle \psi|\hat{A} \psi \rangle,$$
where ##|\psi \rangle \langle \psi|## describing the state the particle is prepared in when measuring the observable ##A##, which is represented by the self-adjoint operator ##\hat{A}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi and BvU

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K