Expectation value of non-physical observable

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of expectation values in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on non-physical observables and their implications. The original poster questions the nature of expectation values for operators that are not considered physical observables, using the example of .

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the criteria for an observable to yield a real expectation value, questioning whether the requirement is that the observable must be physically meaningful. They discuss the properties of self-adjoint operators and their relation to real expectation values.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the properties of operators in quantum mechanics, particularly regarding self-adjointness and the implications for expectation values. Some participants have provided insights into the nature of certain combinations of operators, suggesting that valid observables can be constructed through careful operator ordering.

Contextual Notes

Participants are examining the implications of using non-physical observables and the criteria that define physical observables in quantum mechanics. The discussion includes references to specific operators and their mathematical properties without reaching a consensus on the interpretation of these concepts.

Visceral
Messages
59
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This may be incredibly obvious, but I just need to check. Of course we all know that physical observables must yield real expectation values. What if you tried to calculate, say, <xV(d/dx)>, where x is the position, d/dx is a first derivative, and V is the potential? This isn't an observable...so do we automatically know the answer is zero(or non-real)?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nope.
 
vela said:
Nope.

So after searching around I agree with your answer, but I am not sure why this is so. For example, <xp> is not zero but has a complex component. xp isn't really considered a physical observable though...is it? Is the only restriction on for a real expectation value that the quantity be a "physically meaningful" observable such as momentum, energy, etc..?
 
The basic requirement is for the linear operators which describe quantum observables to be self-adjoint. xp isn't. Self-adjoint operators have a spectral decomposition with a purely real spectrum, so that every expectation value on a state in their domain is real.
 
However, the combination

D = \frac{XP+PX}{2},

which looks the same classically, is self adjoint. One can often construct valid observables by getting the operator ordering right.
 
Oxvillian said:
However, the combination

D = \frac{XP+PX}{2},

which looks the same classically, is self adjoint. One can often construct valid observables by getting the operator ordering right.

So since this is self adjoint...then how to we interpret this physically?
 
Simply as the product of position and momentum, I would think. We could in principle design a clever experiment to measure D.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K