Inner product of a vector with an operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inner product of a vector with an operator, particularly focusing on the implications of using differential operators in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the conditions under which certain mathematical identities hold, the nature of Hermitian operators, and the validity of specific functions as wavefunctions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the inner product defined as ##\int_a^b f^*(x)g(x) dx## leads to the identity ## \langle \hat A ψ | \hat A ψ \rangle = \langle ψ | \hat A ^* \hat A | ψ \rangle = \int_a^b ψ^*(x) \hat A ^* \hat A ψ(x) dx##.
  • Others argue that using the operator ##\frac{d}{dx}## with the function ##ψ(x)=x## results in conflicting values for the inner products, suggesting a misunderstanding or misapplication of the operator.
  • A later reply questions the assumption that moving operators around in an inner product is valid regardless of the Hermitian nature of the operator.
  • Another participant emphasizes the necessity of determining the Hermitian conjugate of an operator to ensure proper application of these identities.
  • One participant notes that the proof of the Hermicity of ##d/dx## requires specific conditions, such as the function vanishing at the boundaries, which is not satisfied by the function ##x##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the application of differential operators and the conditions under which they are Hermitian. There is no consensus on the implications of these mathematical properties, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct application of the inner product with respect to the operators discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations regarding the assumptions made about the functions used in conjunction with differential operators, particularly concerning boundary conditions and the definition of valid wavefunctions.

EquationOfMotion
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
So say our inner product is defined as ##\int_a^b f^*(x)g(x) dx##, which is pretty standard. For some operator ##\hat A##, do we then have ## \langle \hat A ψ | \hat A ψ \rangle = \langle ψ | \hat A ^* \hat A | ψ \rangle = \int_a^b ψ^*(x) \hat A ^* \hat A ψ(x) dx##? This seems counter-intuitive. Say our operator is ##\frac{d}{dx}## and ##ψ(x)=x##. Then, evidently ## \langle \hat A ψ | \hat A ψ \rangle = b-a## and ## \langle ψ | \hat A ^* \hat A | ψ \rangle = 0##, which is obviously incorrect. What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
EquationOfMotion said:
So say our inner product is defined as ##\int_a^b f^*(x)g(x) dx##, which is pretty standard. For some operator ##\hat A##, do we then have ## \langle \hat A ψ | \hat A ψ \rangle = \langle ψ | \hat A ^* \hat A | ψ \rangle = \int_a^b ψ^*(x) \hat A ^* \hat A ψ(x) dx##? This seems counter-intuitive. Say our operator is ##\frac{d}{dx}## and ##ψ(x)=x##. Then, evidently ## \langle \hat A ψ | \hat A ψ \rangle = b-a## and ## \langle ψ | \hat A ^* \hat A | ψ \rangle = 0##, which is obviously incorrect. What am I missing?
You must consider the correct brackets. ##\langle A\psi , A\psi \rangle = \int_a^b (A(\psi))^*(x)(A(\psi))(x)dx## and ##\frac{d}{dx}(\psi)=\psi## if ##\psi = \operatorname{id}##.
 
EquationOfMotion said:
So say our inner product is defined as ##\int_a^b f^*(x)g(x) dx##, which is pretty standard. For some operator ##\hat A##, do we then have ## \langle \hat A ψ | \hat A ψ \rangle = \langle ψ | \hat A ^* \hat A | ψ \rangle = \int_a^b ψ^*(x) \hat A ^* \hat A ψ(x) dx##? This seems counter-intuitive. Say our operator is ##\frac{d}{dx}## and ##ψ(x)=x##. Then, evidently ## \langle \hat A ψ | \hat A ψ \rangle = b-a## and ## \langle ψ | \hat A ^* \hat A | ψ \rangle = 0##, which is obviously incorrect. What am I missing?

Careful! The differential operator is not Hermitian on the set of all functions. Try with a valid wave-function on an interval.
 
PeroK said:
Careful! The differential operator is not Hermitian on the set of all functions. Try with a valid wave-function on an interval.
Doesn't moving around the operators in an inner product work regardless of whether or not it's Hermitian?
 
EquationOfMotion said:
Doesn't moving around the operators in an inner product work regardless of whether or not it's Hermitian?

Yes, but you have to work out what the Hermitian conjugate of your operator is. That's assuming it has one.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and EquationOfMotion
PeroK said:
Yes, but you have to work out what the Hermitian conjugate of your operator is. That's assuming it has one.

Ooh, so it does always work as long as you know what the Hermitian conjugate is, but you of course *need* the correct conjugate. Thanks!
 
EquationOfMotion said:
Ooh, so it does always work as long as you know what the Hermitian conjugate is, but you of course *need* the correct conjugate. Thanks!

The proof of The Hermicity of ##d/dx## involves integration by parts and taking the term evaluated on the boundary to be zero, where the range is either ##R## or a finite interval. The function ##x## does not vanish on the boundary, so the operator is only Hermitian on a suitable subset of all functions.

Technically, therefore, all valid wavefunctions must be zero on the boundary.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K