Ladder Operator/hermiticity

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAGS
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Ladder operators, defined as L+/- = LX (+/-) iLY, originate from the solutions to specific quantum mechanical problems, such as the harmonic oscillator, and allow transitions between eigenstates. Their significance lies in their ability to raise or lower the energy levels of a system. Hermitian operators are crucial in quantum mechanics because they correspond to measurable observables, with real eigenvalues reflecting the physical reality of measurements. The relationship between Hermitian operators and unitary symmetries further emphasizes their role in defining physical observables. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the foundations of quantum mechanics.
GAGS
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody, I have few queries in Quantum.Can anybody tell me:-
1.) Ladder operators are very well defined as L+/- = LX (+/-) iLY.
But what is its significance and from where it found its origination.
2.) Condition for any operator being HERMITIAN, please don’t give mathematical response of this i.e. adjoint(operator) = operator, i know that. Please tell me in sense of physically , by giving example if possible.
With regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1) Ladder operators originate from the specific derivation you are doing, e.g. into solution of the harmonic oscillator. The significance is that if that operator acts on your system you are raised/lowered to the next eigenstate.

2) It looks like there's math, but this is a physical response...

By definition, a an observable Q is something that you can directly measure, therefore it must be real. Mathematically: Q = Q*
But we also know that the expectation of Q is: <\psi|Q\psi>
But by definition: <\psi|Q\psi>=<Q\psi|\psi>
Which tells us that Q equals its adjoint.
 
1- I think that the existence of shift operators is a simple result posed by the method of solution of some kinds of problems in QM theory
 
Whenever you do a measurement of an observable corresponding to some operator, your measurement yields one of its eigenvalues (a postulate of QM). Hermitian operators are operators with real eigenvalues, since things we measure are real numbers. Therefore a Hermitian operator has potential to correspond to a measurable observable.
 
GAGS said:
Hello everybody, I have few queries in Quantum.Can anybody tell me:-
1.) Ladder operators are very well defined as L+/- = LX (+/-) iLY.
But what is its significance and from where it found its origination.
2.) Condition for any operator being HERMITIAN, please don’t give mathematical response of this i.e. adjoint(operator) = operator, i know that. Please tell me in sense of physically , by giving example if possible.
With regards

1.) Physical states are vectors in certain representation of the symmetry group. In the case of symmetry group SO(3)(or SU(2), they share same algebra), the way to construct the irreducible representation is given by Cartan. We first choose a standard state, then consecutively operating on the standard state by certain well-designed operator. It turns out that from the Lie algebra of SO(3) group, we can construct the so-called ladder operators which operate on the standard state would generate all basis of certain irreducible representation.

Similarly, in another physical case, the SHO, from the commutators of position and momentum operators, we can construct the similar ladder operators which transform the state to another state belonging to different energy level.

(2) One seeming reasonable sense is that, the eigenvalues(the quantities we measured in the laboratory) of Hermitian operators are real. This is consistent with the postulates of QM. Moreover, since the generators of a unitary symmetry can be Hermitian. Hence, the symmetry would give us main origin of physical observables.
BTW, precisely speaking, we should say the observables in QM must be represented as Hermitian operators. Not all operators in QM should be Hermitian.

-----
Everyone is welcome to correct my concept.
Ismaili
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
3K