1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Please help -Dirac delta potential-, Hermitian Conjugate

  1. Aug 30, 2006 #1
    Please help!!! -Dirac delta potential-, Hermitian Conjugate

    Im trying to solve problem 2.26 from Griffiths (1st. ed, Intro to Q.M.). Its about the allowed enegy to double dirac potential. I came up with a final equation that is trancedental. (After I separate the even and odd solution of psi.) Am I on the right track?

    Please refer to Griffiths book equation number 3.83. Now consider my arguments.

    Let lc> = Tlb>, where T is an operator, then <cl = <bl T+, where T+ is the hermitian conjugate of T. One of the property of inner product is.

    <alc> = <cla>*
    <alTlb> = <blT+la>*

    In eqn. 3.83 of Griffiths there is no conjugation when T+ operates on la>...
    Does this mean

    <blT+la>* = <alT+lb> ?

    where * means conjugate
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 31, 2006 #2

    Dr Transport

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I would suspect that T is Hermitian...
  4. Sep 7, 2006 #3
    Hermitian operator is just a special case of adjoints....
    Sorry for the late reply ^^
  5. Sep 7, 2006 #4
    :uhh: Is it always true that
    <blT+la>* = <alT+lb>
    regardless of T being Hermitian?
  6. Sep 7, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Of course not. Let's say you have

    [tex] \langle b, T^{\dagger}a\rangle [/tex]

    That's equal to

    [tex] \langle (T^{\dagger})^{\dagger}b, a\rangle [/tex]

    So you'd have to require that the adjoint of the adjoint should exist and moreover

    [tex] T^{\dagger}b=(T^{\dagger})^{\dagger}b \ , \ \forall b\in D(T^{\dagger}) \and b\in D((T^{\dagger})^{\dagger}) [/tex]

    If that happens, then you can employ Dirac's notation with bars. It's always true that an operator is included in its adjoint's adjoint, but for the adjoint it always have to be checked.

    Last edited: Sep 7, 2006
  7. Sep 8, 2006 #6
    In the first edition of "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths equation 3.83 he (Griffiths) states that a Hermitian Conjugate is an operator with the property

    <alTb>=<T+alb> ... (1)

    That is a Hermitian Conjugate (not necessarily Hermitian operator) is a "transformation T+ which, when applied to the first member of an inner product, gives the same result as if T itself had been applied to the second vector."

    But from my previous arguments, I obtained

    <alTlb>=<blT+la>* ... (2)

    if i equate (1) and (2) i will have (if <alTlb> is the same as <alTb>)


    notice that T+ operates on la> now.:confused:
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Please help -Dirac delta potential-, Hermitian Conjugate
  1. Hermitian conjugate (Replies: 1)

  2. Hermitian Conjugate (Replies: 15)

  3. Hermitian conjugate (Replies: 6)