Expectation value of an operator to the power of n

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the relationship <A^n> = <A>^n, which appears intuitive but requires rigorous justification. The initial proof attempt shows that both sides equal λ^n under the assumption that the state |Ψ⟩ is an eigenstate of operator A. However, it is noted that this equality holds only for eigenstates, as counterexamples exist, such as the ground state of a particle in a box where <x> = 0 but <x^2> > <x>^2. The conversation suggests using the Binomial Theorem to derive a more general expression for <A^n> - <A>^n, highlighting that the variance is not necessarily zero for n = 2. Overall, the need for a broader proof is emphasized, particularly for non-eigenstate scenarios.
patric44
Messages
308
Reaction score
40
Homework Statement
prove that : <A^n>=<A>^n
Relevant Equations
<A^n>=<A>^n
hi all
how do I prove that
$$
<A^{n}>=<A>^{n}
$$
It seems intuitive but how do I rigorously prove it, My attempt was like , the LHS can be written as:
$$
\bra{\Psi}\hat{A}.\hat{A}.\hat{A}...\ket{\Psi}=\lambda^{n} \bra{\Psi}\ket{\Psi}=\lambda^{n}\delta_{ii}=\lambda^{n}
$$
and the RHS equal:
$$
<A>^{n}=[\bra{\Psi}A\ket{\Psi}]^{n}=\lambda^{n}[\bra{\Psi}\ket{\Psi}]^{n}=\lambda^{n}[\delta_{ii}]^{n}=\lambda^{n}
$$
Is my proof rigurus enough or there are other formal proof for that
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A counter example. For ground state of a partricle in a box [-a,a],
<x>=0 but &lt;x^2&gt; \ \ &gt;\ \ &lt;x&gt;^2=0

Your proof seems to be all right only when ##\Psi## is an eigenstate of A with eigenvalue ##\lambda##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
patric44 said:
Homework Statement: prove that : <A^n>=<A>^n
Note that for ##n = 2##, the variance is not necessarily zero:
$$\sigma^2(A) =\langle A^2 \rangle - \langle A \rangle^2 \ne 0$$In general, you can derive an expression for ##\langle A^n \rangle - \langle A \rangle^n## by starting with:
$$\langle[A - \langle A \rangle]^n \rangle$$And expanding using the Binomial Theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz and malawi_glenn
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top