# Proof that (p + ix) operator is non-hermitian (easy)

#### halfoflessthan5

theres one line that keeps coming up in proofs that I don't get. How do i get from

$$\int$$ ($$\hat{p}$$$$\Psi$$1)*$$\Psi$$2 + i $$\int$$ ($$\hat{x}$$$$\Psi$$1)$$\Psi$$2

to

$$\int$$ ( ($$\hat{p}$$-i$$\hat{x}$$) $$\Psi$$1)*$$\Psi$$2

using the fact that p and x are Hermitian.

im sure its painfully simple but i cant see it.

Related Quantum Physics News on Phys.org

#### nrqed

Homework Helper
Gold Member
theres one line that keeps coming up in proofs that I don't get. How do i get from

$$\int$$ ($$\hat{p}$$$$\Psi$$1)*$$\Psi$$2 + i $$\int$$ ($$\hat{x}$$$$\Psi$$1)$$\Psi$$2
I guess you mean that there is a complex conjugate on (x Psi_1) in the second term)
to

$$\int$$ ( ($$\hat{p}$$-i$$\hat{x}$$) $$\Psi$$1)*$$\Psi$$2

using the fact that p and x are Hermitian.

im sure its painfully simple but i cant see it.
Well, for that step you actually do not need at all to use the fact that x and p are hermitian.

All you need to use is that i = (-i)*

#### reilly

Why the * in the first integral, but not the second? The second integral only makes sense in QM if the wave function is real, when, in fact, most wave functions are complex.

Anyway, both p and x are Hermitian. Thus (P+iX)* =(P-iX), virtually by definition, as i is anti-Hertmitian.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

#### halfoflessthan5

okay got it.

I put the operator into the RHS of the hermitian condition, took the complex conjugate and re-arranged it so that it was in the same form as the LHS of the hermitian condition. the inequality obviously doesnt hold because the 'i' put a minus in one, so the operator wasn't hermitian. thankyou so much guys. and sorry for the typo

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving