Linear operators & the uncertainty principle

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the proof of the uncertainty principle for two Hermitian operators A and B in a Hilbert space. Key concepts include the definition of uncertainty, expressed as (\Delta A)^2 = \langle\psi|(A - \langle A \rangle)^2|\psi\rangle, which is equivalent to (\Delta A)^2 = \langle A^2 \rangle - \langle A \rangle^2. The discussion clarifies that adding a scalar to an operator is valid, as scalars can be interpreted as operators. Additionally, the relationship between the bra and ket vectors is explained, emphasizing the use of the adjoint operator C^\dagger.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with Hilbert space concepts
  • Knowledge of inner product properties
  • Basic grasp of operator adjoints and their significance
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical foundations of Hermitian operators
  • Learn about the properties of inner products in Hilbert spaces
  • Explore the implications of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the role of adjoint operators in quantum theory
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the mathematical underpinnings of the uncertainty principle will benefit from this discussion.

Ahmes
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Hi,
I try to understand the proof for the uncertainty principle for two Hermitian operators A and B in a Hilbert space. My questions are rather general so you don't need to know the specific proof.

The first thing I couldn't get into my head was the definition of uncertainty
[tex](\Delta A)^2=\langle\psi|(A- \langle A \rangle)^2|\psi\rangle[/tex]
Using the properties of the inner product I can be convinced this is equivalent to the ordinary definition of [tex](\Delta A)^2=\langle A^2 \rangle-{\langle A \rangle}^2[/tex] BUT [tex]A[/tex] is an operator and [tex]\langle A \rangle[/tex] is a number! How can [tex](A- \langle A \rangle)^2[/tex] even be defined?

Second - somewhere else in the proof a new vector is defined [tex]|\varphi \rangle=C| \psi \rangle[/tex] OK, they can do it, but then they say that if so, then also [tex]\langle \varphi |= \langle \psi | C^\dagger[/tex] and I just can't see why... Why the dagger I mean

Can anyone help?
Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There's nothing wrong with adding a scalar to an operator, since you can interpret every scalar itself as an operator. It just multiplies the vector it acts upon by the scalar. If it helps, you can also imagine the identity operator next to it.

By the way, the ordinary definition of [itex](\Delta A)^2[/itex] is either [itex]\langle (A-\langle A \rangle)^2\rangle[/itex], or [itex]\langle A^2 \rangle-{\langle A \rangle}^2[/itex]. They are identical ofcourse, but from the former you can easily see that
[tex](\Delta A)^2=\langle\psi|(A- \langle A \rangle)^2|\psi\rangle[/tex]

since, for any operator [itex]\langle Q \rangle = \angle \psi|Q|\psi \rangle[/itex].

The bra associated with the ket [itex]C|\psi \rangle[/itex] is [itex]\langle \psi|C^\dagger[/itex], I`m sure that's explained in your book somewhere.
[tex]\langle \psi |C|\psi\rangle^*=\langle \psi |C^\dagger|\psi\rangle[/tex]
 
Thanks.
It took me quite a while to convince myself about the latter...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
382
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K