Particle Number Operator (Hermitian?)

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the particle number operator, N, in quantum mechanics, specifically its Hermitian nature. The operator is defined as N = a+ a, where a+ is the conjugate of a. A proof presented in Cohen-Tannoudji's text claims N is Hermitian, stating that N+ = a+ a+ = N. Participants express confusion over the proof's validity, particularly regarding the properties of conjugate operators. The conversation highlights a common misunderstanding in applying conjugate properties, ultimately seeking clarification on the Hermitian proof.
Mimb8
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Particle Number Operator (Hermitian??)

Hey guys,

I'm studying the quantic harmonic oscillator and I'm using "Cohen-Tannoudji Quantum Mechanics Volume 1".

At some point he introduced the particle number operator, N, such that:

N=a+.a , where a+ is the conjugate operator of a.

The line of proof that they used to show that N is hermitian is the following:

N+=a+.(a+)+=N , where N+ is the conjugate operator of N.

Somehow, in ways I cannot understand, this proves it.

But everytime I try and prove it myself I get to the conclusion that N is not hermitian.

Can someone be kind enough and help me with this :)

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mimb8 said:
The line of proof that they used to show that N is hermitian is the following:

N+=a+.(a+)+=N , where N+ is the conjugate operator of N.

Did you mean to write this? It should be N^+ = (a^+ a)+ = a+ (a+)+ = a+ a = N.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Hi George,

I'm not sure I get the transition:

(a+. a)+=a+.(a+)+

Back me up here, if I have the operator (AB) and I apply the conjugate it gives me:

(AB)+=A+.B+

Right?

(I seem to be missing something really obvious here :s)
 
Mimb8 said:
(AB)+=A+.B+

No, (AB)+ = B+ A+
 
George Jones said:
No, (AB)+ = B+ A+


Oh...I seem to have misread that property (shame on me).

Thank you :)
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K