Hermitian Operators and Imaginary Numbers

Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
So I understand what a hermitian operator is and how if A and B are hermitian operators, then the product of AB is not necessarily Hermitian since


*Note here + is dagger

(AB)+=B+A+=BA

I also recognize that (AB-BA) is not Hermitian since (AB-BA)+=B+A+-A+B+

In addition, I know that any real number a is a Hermitian operator since <Psi l|a Psi n>=<aPsi l|Psi n>

Now here comes my questions.
Where A and B are both hermitian operators,
1)how do we know if something like i(AB-BA) is a hermitian operator where i is an imaginary number? How do I show that this is not a hermitian operator because I am pretty sure it is not?

2) and how would I show that (AB+BA/2) is Hermitian because I feel like it should be, but I don't know how to interchange the 2 with the A and B operators?

And if operator A corresponds to observable A, and operator B corresponds to observable B, what is a "good" (i.e.Hermitian) operator that corresponds to the physically observable product AB?


When I am dealing with two operators, I don't think I am confused on how to work with them, but when dealing with 3 I get a little iffy. Peace and love.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ed Quanta said:
Where A and B are both hermitian operators,
1)how do we know if something like i(AB-BA) is a hermitian operator where i is an imaginary number? How do I show that this is not a hermitian operator because I am pretty sure it is not?

[ i(AB-BA)]+ = (-i)(B+ A+ - A+ B+) = (-i) (BA-AB) = i(AB-BA)


2) and how would I show that (AB+BA/2) is Hermitian because I feel like it should be, but I don't know how to interchange the 2 with the A and B operators?

(AB+BA/2)+ - (AB+BA/2) = BA + AB/2 - AB - BA/2 = BA/2 - AB/2 = [B,A] / 2

So if A and B do not commute, the difference between your operator and its conjugate is not 0 (because equal to the commutator divided by 2).

And if operator A corresponds to observable A, and operator B corresponds to observable B, what is a "good" (i.e.Hermitian) operator that corresponds to the physically observable product AB?

1/2 (AB + BA).

(Wigner's prescription, I think it is called).

It is not unique, of course ;
you can have 1/2(AB + BA) + c i [A,B] with c an arbitrary real number for example.


cheers,
Patrick.
 
:smile:
Ed Quanta said:
1)how do we know if something like i(AB-BA) is a hermitian operator where i is an imaginary number? How do I show that this is not a hermitian operator because I am pretty sure it is not?

2) and how would I show that (AB+BA/2) is Hermitian because I feel like it should be, but I don't know how to interchange the 2 with the A and B operators?

And if operator A corresponds to observable A, and operator B corresponds to observable B, what is a "good" (i.e.Hermitian) operator that corresponds to the physically observable product AB?

Hi, here are the answers
1) Just use the definition of "Hermitian" : A+ = A and B+ = B (they are hermitian)
so you get :

[ i(AB-BA)]+ = (-i)(B+ A+ - A+ B+) = (-i) (BA-AB) and this equals i(AB-BA)



2) Same system, man, just use the definition of hermitian operators :

(AB+BA/2)+ - (AB+BA/2) = (BA + AB/2) - AB - BA/2 = BA/2 - AB/2 = [B,A] / 2

If A and B are not commuting operators then the difference between the given operator and its conjugate is not 0 . If A and B commute then the commutator will be 0 !

3) this is an easy one and the answer is

1/2 (AB + BA)


regards
marlon
 
Sorry, Patrick

I did not see you already answered this question...

I apologize for that...

marlon
 
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!

Similar threads

Back
Top