Expectation value of a hermitian operator prepared in an eigenstate

Dixanadu
Messages
250
Reaction score
2
Hey guys,

So this question is sort of a fundamental one but I'm a bit confused for some reason. Basically, say I have a Hermitian operator \hat{A}. If I have a system that is prepared in an eigenstate of \hat{A}, that basically means that \hat{A}\psi = \lambda \psi, where \lambda is real, right? So can I say the following, because the system is prepared in an eigenstate of \hat{A}
∫\psi^{*}\psi=1?

The reason I'm asking is because \psi is just a function of x - in literature the normalization is always written in terms of the big psi (\Psi), which is a function of x,t.

Also, while I am at it - by saying that it is prepared in an eigenstate of \hat{A} does that also mean that the probability of measuring this state is equal to 1? so that the wavefunction is collapsed to this eigenstate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dixanadu said:
So this question is sort of a fundamental one but I'm a bit confused for some reason. Basically, say I have a Hermitian operator \hat{A}. If I have a system that is prepared in an eigenstate of \hat{A}, that basically means that \hat{A}\psi = \lambda \psi, where \lambda is real, right?
Yes. However, you should write something like ψλ to make clear that ψ is the eigenstate for the eigenvalue λ. Usually, there are many different eigenvalues and corresponding eigenstates.

Dixanadu said:
So can I say the following, because the system is prepared in an eigenstate of \hat{A}
∫\psi^{*}\psi=1?
No. Why do you think this normalization is related to the property of ψ being an eigenstate of A?

Dixanadu said:
The reason I'm asking is because \psi is just a function of x - in literature the normalization is always written in terms of the big psi (\Psi), which is a function of x,t.
If your wavefunction is normalized at some time, it will remain so at subsequent times. This is guaranteed by the Schrödinger equation (we say the time evolution is"unitary").

Dixanadu said:
Also, while I am at it - by saying that it is prepared in an eigenstate of \hat{A} does that also mean that the probability of measuring this state is equal to 1?
More precisely, the probability of getting the corresponding eigenvalue as measurement outcome is 1.
 
Last edited:
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top