Simplifying Operator and Dirac Algebra for Kets

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeBuonasera
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Dirac Operator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification of expressions involving operators and kets in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the expression \(\langle \Psi | A + A^\dagger | \Psi \rangle . A\). Participants explore whether it is possible to manipulate the operators and kets in the given expression, particularly the transformation of the operator \(A\) into \(A^\dagger\).

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to simplify the expression \(\langle \Psi | A + A^\dagger | \Psi \rangle . A\) and questions if the operator \(A\) can be changed to \(A^\dagger\).
  • Another participant points out that the initial reasoning is incorrect, emphasizing that a scalar multiplied by an operator does not yield a scalar and that operators cannot be taken inside the bra-ket notation.
  • A suggestion is made to expand operator \(A\) using the spectral theorem, contingent on its applicability.
  • A further detail is introduced regarding the expression \((\langle \Psi | A | \Psi \rangle + \langle \Psi | A^\dagger | \Psi \rangle) . A | \Psi \rangle\), but it is met with the same conclusion about scalar and vector multiplication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the incorrectness of the initial simplification attempts and the rules regarding the manipulation of operators and kets. However, there is no consensus on the best approach to simplify the expression or the applicability of the spectral theorem.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the operators and the context in which the spectral theorem applies, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

MikeBuonasera
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi Guys, I am facing a problem playing around with some operators and Kets, would like some help!

I have [tex]\langle \Psi | A+A^\dagger | \Psi \rangle .A[/tex]

Could someone simplify it? Especially is there a way to change the last operator A into A^\dagger?

The way I thought about this is:
[tex] =(\langle \Psi |A | \Psi \rangle + \langle \Psi | A^\dagger | \Psi \rangle).A<br /> =(\langle \Psi |A A | \Psi \rangle + \langle \Psi | A^\dagger A | \Psi \rangle)<br /> =\langle \Psi | I | \Psi \rangle[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MikeBuonasera said:
[tex] =(\langle \Psi |A | \Psi \rangle + \langle \Psi | A^\dagger | \Psi \rangle).A<br /> =(\langle \Psi |A A | \Psi \rangle + \langle \Psi | A^\dagger A | \Psi \rangle)<br /> =\langle \Psi | I | \Psi \rangle[/tex]

That's obviously wrong.

You have a scalar times an operator and you get a scalar.

You can't take the operator inside the bra-ket.

Off the top of my head you might like to expand A in terms of the spectral theorem ie ∑ ai |bi><bi| - assuming it applies of course.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
bhobba said:
That's obviously wrong.

You have a scalar times an operator and you get a scalar.

You can't take the operator inside the bra-ket.

Off the top of my head you might like to expand A in terms of the spectral theorem ie ∑ ai |bi><bi| - assuming it applies of course.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks Bill. Actually there is a detail that I omitted which may help:
(⟨Ψ|A|Ψ⟩+⟨Ψ|A†|Ψ⟩).A|Ψ⟩
Does this make any difference?

thanks
 
MikeBuonasera said:
Thanks Bill. Actually there is a detail that I omitted which may help:
(⟨Ψ|A|Ψ⟩+⟨Ψ|A†|Ψ⟩).A|Ψ⟩
Does this make any difference?

Same problem - only you have a scalar times a vector.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
696
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K