Show linear combination is not Hermitian

Shiz
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Linear combination is \hat{A} + i\hat{B}. It's given that it is not Hermitian already.


Homework Equations


∫ψi * \hat{Ω} ψj = (∫ψj * \hat{Ω} ψi)*


The Attempt at a Solution



∫ψi * (\hat{A} + i\hat{B}) ψj = (∫ψj * (\hat{A} + i\hat{B}) ψi)*

I chose to work with the right hand side of the equation first.
∫ψi * (\hat{A} + i\hat{B}) ψj = {∫ψj * \hat{A} ψi + i(∫ψj * \hat{B} ψi)}*

So I have to take the complex conjugate of the right hand side (not sure if that's the proper way to say it). What I don't understand is why the operator would become ∫ψj * \hat{A} ψi - i(∫ψj * \hat{B} ψi) and then ∫ψi * (\hat{A} - i\hat{B}) ψj.

What are the mathematical reasons? The complex conjugate of + i\hat{B} is -i\hat{B}. I would just be replacing the operator with its complex conjugate? That would give me the answer, but it doesn't seem that simple. Clarification at this would help! Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason is the wave functions \Psi_{i,j} also get affected by conjugating. And when you want the hermitian conjugate of a producat of operators, you have to reverse the order of factors, since the hermitian conjugate (for example) of a matrix is the complex conjugate of the transpose of the original matrix: (A^*)_{ij}=\bar{A_{ji}}

If that's what you mean
 
Are ##\hat{A}## and ##\hat{B}## hermitian operators? If they are, it's not generally true that ##\hat{A} + i\hat{B}## is not hermitian (consider the case where ##\hat{B}## is the zero operator).
 
Ahat and Bhat are hermitian operators, yes. But (Ahat -/+ iBhat) is not hermitian. I think I understand but not sure. We have to take the complex conjugate to show that it is not hermitian. So (iBhat)* is (-iBhat). I was wondering if there was more to that step than what I am thinking.

Apologies for no code. I am on the iPhone app and am not sure how to do it.
 
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