Linear and Hermitian Operator on a 2-variable Hilbert Space

  • Thread starter Thread starter CalcYouLater
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator Self
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating the properties of a defined operator in a two-variable Hilbert space. The operator is given by the transformation \(\hat\pi\psi(x,y)=\psi(y,x)\), and the original poster is tasked with showing that this operator is linear and Hermitian.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the definition of a self-adjoint operator and questions how to manipulate the inner product involving the operator. They express uncertainty about the implications of bra and ket notation on their approach.
  • Some participants suggest that showing linearity is straightforward and question the original poster's understanding of the inner product and its implications for linearity and Hermitian properties.
  • There is discussion about the role of dummy variables in integrals and whether interchanging variables affects the integral's value or the complex conjugation.
  • Participants explore the implications of flipping variables in double integrals and whether this affects the properties being investigated.
  • Questions arise about the conditions necessary to demonstrate linearity and whether the unchanged nature of the integral is sufficient for both linearity and Hermitian properties.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and raising questions about the definitions and properties of the operator. Some guidance has been offered regarding the nature of linearity and the manipulation of integrals, but there is no explicit consensus on the conclusions drawn from these discussions.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of operator properties in the context of a two-variable Hilbert space, with specific attention to the definitions of linearity and Hermitian operators. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and uncertainties regarding the mathematical framework involved.

CalcYouLater
Messages
51
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am given that an operator is defined by the following:

[tex]\hat\pi\psi(x,y)=\psi(y,x)[/tex]

in a 2 variable Hilbert space of functions [tex]\psi(x,y)[/tex]

I have to show that the operator is linear and Hermitian

Homework Equations


An operator is self adjoint if:

[tex]\left\langle\psi\right|\hat{A}^{\dagger}\left|\right\phi\rangle=\left\langle\phi\right|\hat{A}\left|\right\psi\rangle^{*}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



With the information given, how can I apply the above condition? Should I put x one side and y on the other? Or should I use psi(x,y) on each side. If so, does the fact that one of the psi's is a bra and the other is a ket change anything?

To show that it is linear, I need to show that it is distributive. Is it as simple as saying:

[tex]\hat{\pi}(A\psi(x,y)+B\psi(x,y))=\hat{\pi}(A\psi(x,y))+\hat{\pi}(B\psi(x,y))[/tex]

If I remember correctly, my professor said that since the space is linear then the operators are distributive. That doesn't make sense to me. If an operator can be anything, then couldn't it be something that isn't linear as well?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What's your definition of the inner product? It's an integral, right? Showing it's linear isn't at all hard. And showing it's hermitian I think is just a changes of dummy variables, isn't it? An operator can be anything, but you are asked to show this one is linear. I'm not sure what your last question is about.
 
Hi. Thanks for responding (and for the help in a different thread).
Dick said:
What's your definition of the inner product? It's an integral, right? Showing it's linear isn't at all hard. And showing it's hermitian I think is just a changes of dummy variables, isn't it? An operator can be anything, but you are asked to show this one is linear. I'm not sure what your last question is about.
Inner product:

[tex]\left\langle\psi\right|\hat{A}\left|\right\psi\rangle=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^{*}\hat{\pi}\psi{dx}[/tex]

Hmm, dummy variables. Would that mean that the above integral changes from integrating over dx to over dy?

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^{*}\hat{\pi}\psi{dy}[/tex]
 
CalcYouLater said:
Hi. Thanks for responding (and for the help in a different thread).

Inner product:

[tex]\left\langle\psi\right|\hat{A}\left|\right\psi\rangle=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^{*}\hat{\pi}\psi{dx}[/tex]

Hmm, dummy variables. Would that mean that the above integral changes from integrating over dx to over dy?

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^{*}\hat{\pi}\psi{dy}[/tex]

They are functions of two variables, so it's probably a double integral dx*dy, isn't it? Applying pi just flips x and y, doesn't it? Does that affect the integral?
 
Dick said:
They are functions of two variables, so it's probably a double integral dx*dy, isn't it? Applying pi just flips x and y, doesn't it? Does that affect the integral?

Yes, a double integral does make sense. I think that flipping x & y does not change the integral because it doesn't matter in which order we integrate because the limits are the same for both x and y.

But, does it change the complex conjugation? I say no because I do not see any evidence based off of the information given that complex numbers are affected by this permutation.
 
CalcYouLater said:
Yes, a double integral does make sense. I think that flipping x & y does not change the integral because it doesn't matter in which order we integrate because the limits are the same for both x and y.

But, does it change the complex conjugation? I say no because I do not see any evidence based off of the information given that complex numbers are affected by this permutation.

Right. The limits for x and y are the same. Write out the integral expressions for <psi,pi(phi)> and <pi(psi),phi> and try to convince yourself interchanging the labels 'x' and 'y' makes no difference.
 
If I say:

[tex]\left\langle\psi\right|\hat{\pi}\left|\right\phi\rangle=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^{*}\hat{\pi}\phi{dx}{dy}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^{*}{dx}{dy}\hat{\pi}\phi=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^{*}\hat{\pi}\phi{dx}{dy}[/tex]

and likewise:[tex]\left\langle\hat{\pi}\psi\right|\left\right\phi\rangle=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{\pi}\psi^{*}\phi{dx}{dy}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{\pi}\psi^{*}{dx}{dy}\phi=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\phi\hat{\pi}\psi^{*}{dx}{dy}[/tex]

Isn't that assuming the operator is linear? I must be missing something here. I was thinking that showing that moving around the integrand does not change the integration proves they're hermitian, but now I think that is based off the idea that (pi*psi*phi)=(psi*pi*phi).
 
integral conjugate(psi(y,x))*phi(x,y)*dx*dy=integral conjugate(psi(x,y))*phi(y,x)*dx*dy. True or false? They only differ by an interchange of x and y, don't they? Do you see what I'm saying?
 
Ahh. You are good. Does that mean I get a two-fer? Is the fact that the integral is unchanged enough (I think sufficient is the word) to show the operator is linear as well. Or is there a condition for linearity that I am not considering?
 
  • #10
CalcYouLater said:
Ahh. You are good. Does that mean I get a two-fer? Is the fact that the integral is unchanged enough (I think sufficient is the word) to show the operator is linear as well. Or is there a condition for linearity that I am not considering?

No, linearity is separate. You want to show stuff like pi(A(x,y)+B(x,y))=pi(A(x,y))+pi(B(x,y)). It's really pretty direct if you think about what pi is doing. It's just switching x and y around.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K