I QM: I as an Observable & Its Eigenvectors & Eigenvalue

Marrrrrrr
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
So, hermitian linear operators represent observables in QM. I (a matrix whose elements are all 1) is certainly a hermitian linear operator. Does this mean that I represent a measurable property? If so, what do we call that property? Identity? Moreover, for any state-vector A, A would be an eigenvector of I with the eigenvalue of 1. What does this all mean? What are the physical meaning of I as an observable (if it is) and its eigenvectors and the eigenvalue? How can we 'measure' I to get the value 1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Marrrrrrr said:
I (a matrix whose elements are all 1)

The symbol ##I## is usually used to denote the identity matrix (which has 1's all along the diagonal and 0's elsewhere). Is that what you meant? Or did you actually mean a matrix with every single element (off diagonal as well as on) 1?

I suspect you mean the identity matrix, since you say this:

Marrrrrrr said:
for any state-vector A, A would be an eigenvector of I with the eigenvalue of 1.

Which is true for the identity matrix, but false for a matrix with all elements 1.
 
Interesting question... so the eigenvalues are 1. That means the result of any measurement is 1. And 1 commutes with any Hamiltonian, so it is conserved in any system. The expectation value is also 1, so the average value of this observable is one.

So if you have a black box that, whenever you apply it to any system, it gives you back a 1. That is the measurement. Not a very interesting black box, I might add, since no matter what you do with it it gives you back the same result.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Gene Naden said:
Not a very interesting black box, I might add, since no matter what you do with it it gives you back the same result.

Yes. The identity matrix is the mathematical description of the physical operation "do nothing at all". Which just gives you back whatever state you hand it, multiplied by the eigenvalue ##1##, i.e., the same state.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top