Is AB Hermitian If A and B Are Hermitian Operators?

burningbend
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
If A and B are hermitian operators, then AB is hermitian only if the commutator=0.

basically i need to prove that, but i don't really know where to start ofther than the general <f|AB|g> = <g|AB|f>*

obv physics math is not my strong point. thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i understand the proof of a single operator and the expansion of the relation to integral notation, but i don't understand the significance of the multiplication of the operators and why there is the condition there.
 
how's this?

<f|AB|g>=<g|AB|f>*

left=(\sum<g|A|m><m|B|f>)*
left=\sum<m|A*|g><f|B*|m>
left=\sum<f|B*|m><m|A*|g>
left=<f|B*A*|g>
since B and A are Hermitian,
<f|AB|g> = <f|BA|g>
so AB-BA=0

good enough?
 
Last edited:
Begin with the definition of "Hermitian operator" i.e. it is equal to its adjoint, then apply it to AB and see what is necessary to make it Hermitian.

I don't think you need to invoke the "bra", "ket" products.
 
jambaugh said:
Begin with the definition of "Hermitian operator" i.e. it is equal to its adjoint, then apply it to AB and see what is necessary to make it Hermitian.

I don't think you need to invoke the "bra", "ket" products.

so,

AB=(AB)*
AB=B*A*
B and A are Hermitian, so,
AB=BA
AB-BA=0

and that's it?

i haven't had linear algebra (lol) so the (AB)*=B*A* is a little confusing to me, which i kinda figured out based on using the brackets and the completeness relation. so this would be it?
 
burningbend said:
so,

AB=(AB)*
AB=B*A*
B and A are Hermitian, so,
AB=BA
AB-BA=0

and that's it?

i haven't had linear algebra (lol) so the (AB)*=B*A* is a little confusing to me, which i kinda figured out based on using the brackets and the completeness relation. so this would be it?

That's all there is to it!
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top