Is the Position and Momentum Operator Proof Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ene Dene
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hermitian Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the Hermitian nature of the position and momentum operators in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the mathematical foundations of operator theory and the implications of Hermitian operators on eigenvalues.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to prove that the momentum operator is Hermitian by using eigenstates and their properties. Some participants question the validity of using eigenstates in this context and suggest alternative approaches involving arbitrary states and integration by parts.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing guidance on how to approach the proof of the Hermitian property of operators. There is an exchange of ideas on the correct methodology, particularly regarding the use of inner products and integration techniques.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of proving the Hermitian nature of the momentum operator compared to the position operator, indicating a potential complexity in the mathematical treatment required.

Ene Dene
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Proove that position x and momentum p operators are hermitian.
Now, more generaly the proof that operator of some opservable must be hermitian would go something like this:
A\psi_{n}=a_{n}\psi_{n}
Where A operator of some opservable, \psi_{n} eigenfunction of that operator and a_{n} are the eingenvalues of that operator, which are real because that is what we messure.
So:
<\psi_{n}|A|\psi_{n}>=<\psi_{n}|a_{n}|\psi_{n}>=<a_{n}\psi_{n}|\psi_{n}>=<\psi_{n}|a_{n}\psi_{n}>

Since a_{n} is real. And then:

<A^+\psi_{n}|\psi_{n}>=<\psi_{n}|A\psi_{n}> => <A\psi_{n}|\psi_{n}>=<\psi_{n}|A\psi_{n}> => A^+=A

But how do I apply this to concrete problem, for example on operator p_{x}=-ih\frac{d}{dx} (I used h for h/2Pi). Would this be a good analogy:
-ih\frac{d}{dx}u(x)=p_{x}u(x)
u(x)=Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))
<Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))|-ih\frac{d}{dx}|Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))>=<Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))|p_{x}|Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))>=<p_{x}^*Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))|Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))>=
=<Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))|p_{x}Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))>
But since p_{x} is real:

<-ih\frac{d}{dx}(Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x)))|Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))>=<Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x))|-ih\frac{d}{dx}(Cexp(\frac{i}{h}(p_{x}x)))>

Thus operator of p is hermitian.
Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you want to prove, that eigenvalues of Hermitian operator are real, then you should do something like you have done now. But if you instead want to prove that some given operator is Hermitian, then you should not use eigenstates in your calculation. Operator A being Hermitian means that for two arbitrary physical states \psi and \phi an equation

<br /> \langle A\psi |\phi\rangle = \langle \psi| A\phi\rangle<br />

is true. You are not allowed to assume that these states would be eigenstates.

If the operator is defined in position representation in terms of derivative operators, like the momentum operator is, this proof can be carried out using integration by parts. First write down the inner product in the position representation as an integral, and see what you can do.
 
I understand what you're saying but I haven't been able to proove it.
 
Work out the inner product.
I'll do the x one for you, try the p yourself (it's harder, because you have to find a way to throw the derivative over to the other side ).

I'll work in "real" space:
\langle x\phi | \psi \rangle = \int x^* \phi^*(x) \psi(x) \, \mathrm{d}x
but since in this base the x-operator just multiplies by x, and x* = x as the position is real,
\cdots = \int \phi^*(x) x^* \psi(x) \, \mathrm{d}x = \int \phi^*(x) x \psi(x) \, \mathrm{d}x = \langle \phi | x \psi \rangle.

I know, it looks trivial, but as I said, the momentum is harder. Try it (hint: partial integration)
 
I did it, thanks. Now that I have seen your example it was not hard for momentum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
16K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K