Testing if the momentum operator is Hermitian

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around testing whether the momentum operator is Hermitian, focusing on the mathematical steps involved in the proof and the conditions required for such a determination. Participants explore the implications of normalization of wavefunctions and the properties of operators in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their approach to testing the momentum operator using integration by parts and questions how to handle the first term in their calculation.
  • Another participant asserts that the first term goes to zero due to the normalization condition of the wavefunction, which must approach zero as x approaches infinity.
  • A third participant confirms the previous assertion and states that this leads to the conclusion that the momentum operator satisfies the Hermitian condition, noting that the conjugate of the momentum operator is the negative of the momentum operator itself.
  • One participant presents a proof involving an arbitrary ket and the properties of the momentum operator, suggesting that if the operator is Hermitian, certain relationships hold.
  • Another participant challenges the assumption that the momentum operator is Hermitian, arguing that one must define the operators within a Hilbert space and check properties like continuity and boundedness before making such claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the proof regarding the Hermitian nature of the momentum operator. While some support the assertion that it is Hermitian based on the normalization condition, others argue that a more rigorous approach is necessary to establish this property.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of defining the Hilbert space and the operators involved before concluding on properties such as Hermiticity, indicating that the discussion may depend on specific mathematical frameworks and definitions.

kkan2243
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi. I'm not too good at maths and I'm having some trouble figuring out the basics of what to do with complex conjugates of functions.

Our lecturer has set a couple problems requiring us to test if a few operators are Hermitian. Before I can get to those I thought I'd test the basic momentum operator: [tex](\frac{\hbar}{i} \frac{\partial}{\partial x})[/tex].

Using integration by parts:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi^\ast(x,t) (\frac{\hbar}{i} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}) \Psi(x,t) dx = \frac{\hbar}{i} [\Psi^\ast(x,t)\Psi(x,t)]^\infty_{-\infty} - \int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi(x,t) (\frac{\hbar}{i} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}) \Psi^\ast(x,t) dx[/tex]

Now how do I deal with the first term? Does it reduce to 0 somehow? I recongnise that the second term should be equal to the LHS for the momentum operator to be shown as Hermitian.

Cheers. Kaan

EDIT: sorry, I found the answer https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=138552"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
kkan2243 said:
Now how do I deal with the first term? Does it reduce to 0 somehow?

[itex]\Psi[/itex] must be normalizable, therefore [itex]\Psi^* \Psi[/itex] must go to zero as x goes to infinity in either direction.
 
Yes first term on RHS goes to zero because of the normalization condition on the wavefunction [tex]\Psi(x,t) ->0[/tex] as [tex]x-> \infty[/tex] ( or [tex]-\infty[/tex] ).

So you're left with:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi^\ast(x,t) (\frac{\hbar}{i} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}) \Psi(x,t) dx = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi(x,t) (-\frac{\hbar}{i} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}) \Psi^\ast(x,t) dx[/tex]

Thus the Hermitian condition, [tex]\int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi^\ast(x,t) \hat{P} \Psi(x,t) dx = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi(x,t) \hat{P^\ast} \Psi^\ast(x,t) dx[/tex]

is satisified since the conjugate of the momentum operator is just minus the momentum operator.
 
Is this a valid proof?

Given an arbitrary ket [tex]|a\rangle[/tex]:

[tex]\langle a|\hat{\textbf{p}}a\rangle[/tex]

[tex]=\langle \hat{\textbf{p}}^{\dagger}a|a\rangle[/tex]

If [itex]\hat{\textbf{p}}[/itex] is Hermitian, then

[tex]\hat{\textbf{p}}^{\dagger}=\hat{\textbf{p}}[/tex]

So

[tex]\langle \hat{\textbf{p}}^{\dagger}a|a\rangle = \langle \hat{\textbf{p}}a|a\rangle[/tex]

[tex]=\left(\langle a|\hat{\textbf{p}}a\rangle\right)^{*}[/tex]
 
You can't assume P is hermitean, you have to prove such thing ! You can't prove it in the abstract Dirac language. You must choose a Hilbert space. Define the operators and only then check for properties such as continuity/boundedness, hermiticity, unitarity, etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
655
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
974
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K