Solving the Lie Bracket Question in Quantum Mechanics

Marin
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I was doing an assignment in quantum mechanics and came upon the following fact I cannot explain to me.

I hope someone of you can and will be willing to :)


Consider the creation and annihilation operators: a^+ and a and also the momentum and position operators p and x:

x=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2 c}(a+a^{\dagger})
p=\frac{\hbar c}{\sqrt 2 i}(a-a^{\dagger})
a=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(cx+\frac{i}{c\hbar}p)
a^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(cx-\frac{i}{c\hbar}p)

c=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}}


and the canonical commucator relation: [x,p]=i\hbar 1, where 1 is the identity operator


It follows immediately from the canonical commutator relation between x and p that

[a,a^{\dagger}]=1}
Now, observe what happens when I take the adjoint of this equation:

([a,a^{\dagger}])^{\dagger}=(aa^{\dagger}-a^{\dagger}a)^{\dagger}=a^{\dagger}a-aa^{\dagger}=-[a,a^{\dagger}]=-1

which is peculiar since I thought that the Identity is hermitian: 1^{\dagger}=1, which apperantly doesn't hold here..

Can anyone tell me why this is so?

thanks in advance,

marin
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I found your mistake here
Marin said:
([a,a^{\dagger}])^{\dagger}=(aa^{\dagger}-a^{\dagger}a)^{\dagger}=a^{\dagger}a-aa^{\dagger}=-[a,a^{\dagger}]=-1
marin

Hi Martin,

Using the fact that transposing the product of two operator swaps them and gives the product of their transposes

(A B)^\dagger = B^\dagger A^\dagger

we have,

([a,a^{\dagger}])^{\dagger}=(aa^{\dagger}-a^{\dagger}a)^{\dagger}=a^{\dagger\dagger}a^\dagger - a^\dagger a^{\dagger\dagger} = a a^\dagger - a^\dagger a = 1
 
Last edited:
yes, of course!

sorry for asking...

and thanks once again!
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top