Solving Hermitian Conjugate Homework

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating properties of Hermitian conjugates in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the relationships between operators and their adjoints. The original poster presents two parts: showing that the double adjoint of an operator equals the operator itself, and deriving the Hermitian conjugate of a linear combination of operators.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions and properties of adjoint operators, questioning the validity of certain equalities and the implications of bounded operators.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the relationships between the operators and their adjoints, with some participants providing guidance on how to approach the derivations. Multiple interpretations of the steps involved are being discussed, and there is a recognition of the need for clarity in notation and reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants are operating under the assumption that the operators involved are bounded, which influences the discussion about domains and the existence of adjoints. There is also a focus on ensuring proper notation and understanding of the mathematical principles involved.

v_pino
Messages
156
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



a.) Show \hat {(Q^\dagger)}^\dagger=\hat Q, where \hat {Q^\dagger} is defined by <\alpha| \hat Q \beta>= <\hat Q^ \dagger \alpha|\beta>.

b.) For \hat Q =c_1 \hat A + c_2 \hat B, show its Hermitian conjugate is \hat Q^\dagger =c_1^* \hat A^\dagger + c_2^* \hat B^\dagger.


Homework Equations



a.) I found an example that might be related to this problem. It says that |T^\dagger \alpha> = T^\dagger |\alpha> and <T|=(|T>)^\dagger .





The Attempt at a Solution



For part (a), I'm thinking that I might be rewrite the right hand side of the second equation. From the relevant equations I gave, do you think <\hat Q^\dagger \alpha| \beta> = \hat Q^\dagger <\alpha| \beta> is permitted? And if so, how do I proceed from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For both a) and b) assume the operators are bounded, hence domains issues do not appear. So for point a) both the adjoint and the adjoint of the adjoint exist and share the same domain,

\langle \psi, Q\phi\rangle = \langle Q^{\dagger}\psi,\phi\rangle = ...

For point b), use the definition of adjoint used at a).
 
Here is my attempt after your advice:

(a) <\alpha|\hat Q \beta>=<\alpha| \hat Q^{\dagger \dagger} \beta>

(b) <\hat Q^* \alpha| \beta>=<\hat Q^{\dagger} \alpha|\beta>

I'm not exactly sure about the intermediate steps i.e. from 'first principle' to derive these equations.
 
Ok, in my writing above instead of ... there's what you've written (with other vectors, and with LaTex write \langle and \rangle to get nicely looking eqns)

So

\langle \psi,Q\phi\rangle = \langle \psi,Q^{\dagger\dagger}\phi\rangle from where you have that both the range and the domain of Q and Q double dagger are equal, hence the 2 operators are equal. q.e.d.

For point b) pay more attention with your writings and redo your calculations.
 
Is this correct?

\langle\alpha|\hat Q \beta \rangle=\hat Q \langle \alpha| \beta \rangle <br /> = \langle\hat Q^* \alpha| \beta \rangle

Therefore,

\langle\hat Q^* \alpha| \beta \rangle = \langle \hat Q^\dagger \alpha |\beta \rangle

If the above is correct, I get:

\hat Q^\dagger = \hat Q^* = c_1^* \hat A + c_2^* \hat B

But I don't get the \dagger above the A and the B.
 
Not really.

\langle \psi,(c_1 A + c_2 B)\phi\rangle = \langle (c_1 A + c_2 B)^{\dagger}\psi, \phi\rangle = \langle \psi,c_1 A \phi\rangle + \langle \psi,c_2 B \phi\rangle.

Can you go further with the sequence of equalities ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K