Must Expectation Values Be Real?

pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
Is it true that all expectation values must be real? So if I get an imaginary value, does it mean I made a mistake? Or it doesn't matter and I can just take the absolute value of the expectation?

The momentum operator has an 'i' in it. But after doing, Psi*[P]Psi, I have an expression with 'i' which means I am left with an imaginary expectation value? What should I do?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pivoxa15 said:
Is it true that all expectation values must be real?
Absolutely. They are weighted averages over possible measurement outcomes. The outcomes are real, the weights (probabilities) are real, so the expectation value has to be real. By the way, this is why the operators associated with observables are self-adjoint. The eigenvalues of operators associated with observables are the possible outcomes of measurements. And eigenvalues of self-adjoint operators are real. See how things hang together?
So if I get an imaginary value, does it mean I made a mistake?
Obviously.
 
I would say that with high probability, you need to go back and redo your calculation.

The "i" in the operator should get eliminated by an i that appears when you apply d/dx to something that looks like exp(ix).

The only time you might legitimately get a complex answer to something like this is when you are violating unitarity (if I recall correctly). That means that probability isn't being conserved, so your problem might involve a radioactive decay. But even then, you won't get a purely imaginary answer.

By the way, there is a pretty good probability that this discussion will get banished to homework land. The basic idea is that if it's not interesting enough to make the local experts call each other names, then it must be homework.

Carl
 
Last edited:
CarlB said:
By the way, there is a pretty good probability that this discussion will get banished to homework land. The basic idea is that if it's not interesting enough to make the local experts call each other names, then it must be homework.
Carl

HAHA; I like the way you put it!
 
CarlB said:
The basic idea is that if it's not interesting enough to make the local experts call each other names, then it must be homework.
And if it's interesting enough, it may get banished to the philosophy forum! :biggrin:
 
TriTertButoxy said:
HAHA; I like the way you put it!

Yup me too! Anyway check your calculations (as already pointed out...)
 
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