What are the properties of a Hermitian Hamiltonian operator?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bunting
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of Hermitian Hamiltonian operators, specifically focusing on proving that the sum of an operator and its adjoint is Hermitian. Participants explore the definitions and characteristics of Hermitian operators and engage in clarifying the conditions under which certain expressions are Hermitian.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to prove that if \(\hat{O}\) is a Hamiltonian operator, then \(\hat{O} + \hat{O}^\dagger\) is Hermitian.
  • Another participant asserts that \(\hat{O} + \hat{O}^\dagger\) is always Hermitian, referencing the property that \({O^\dagger}^\dagger = O\).
  • There is a discussion about recognizing an operator as Hermitian based on its adjoint properties and the commutative nature of Hermitian operators.
  • Participants clarify that to prove \(\hat{O} + \hat{O}^\dagger\) is Hermitian, one can show that \((\hat{O} + \hat{O}^\dagger)^\dagger = \hat{O} + \hat{O}^\dagger\).
  • One participant attempts to extend the discussion to the product \(\hat{O}\hat{O}^\dagger\) and questions whether it is Hermitian, leading to further exploration of the properties of adjoints in products of operators.
  • There is a correction regarding the equality in the proof for \(\hat{O}\hat{O}^\dagger\), with a participant noting that the second-last equality in a previous statement is incorrect.
  • Another participant emphasizes that proving an operator is Hermitian requires knowing its explicit form, while others discuss the implications of assuming \(\hat{O}\) is Hermitian.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the properties of Hermitian operators and the methods to prove certain expressions are Hermitian. However, there is some confusion and disagreement regarding the specific steps in the proofs, particularly concerning the product of operators and the implications of their adjoints.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and properties of Hermitian operators, which may affect their understanding of the proofs being discussed. There are also unresolved mathematical steps in the exploration of the product \(\hat{O}\hat{O}^\dagger\).

Bunting
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
So I am working up to some exams and have a question regarding properties of hermitians, specifically the properties of Hamiltonian operators and trying to prove that for example if..

[tex]\hat{O}[/tex] is a hamiltonian operator then...

[tex]\hat{O}[/tex] + [tex]\hat{O}[/tex][tex]\dagger[/tex]

is hermitian*.

Now what I think I am having a problem with is understanding exactly what I am expected to know with regard to this, as what I know about hamiltonian operators (real eigenvalues and orthogonality) don't seem to help a massive amount here (unless I am meant to show that [tex]\hat{O}[/tex] with [tex]\hat{O}[/tex][tex]\dagger[/tex] is orthogonal).

Any help is appreciated, I feel this is one of them subjects where if I start to understand with one example like this I will be able to nail the rest out pretty quickly :)*In case I am explaining badly due to my limited knowledge of hermitian and hamiltonian things, the exact question says...

Show for any operator [tex]\hat{O}[/tex], that [tex]\hat{O}[/tex] + [tex]\hat{O}[/tex][tex]\dagger[/tex] is Hermitian.

edit: sigh, spelt the title wrong :(
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What is a Hamiltonian operator? You mean THE hamiltonian? Or did you mean to say a Hermitian operator? Or a Hilbert operator?

[tex]O + O^\dagger[/tex] is always Hermitian. Use the fact that [tex]{O^\dagger}^\dagger = O[/tex].
 
and use the fact that
[tex] A+B=B+A[/tex]
 
Sorry, I think I meant Hermitian operators. Thank you for the replies but it doesn't help me very much but I think that's maybe because I am asking hthe question wrong! :S

What I am asking is how I would recognise the answer as a Hermitian in particular? Is it hermitian because...

([tex]\hat{O}[/tex][tex]^{dagger}[/tex])[tex]^{dagger}[/tex]

is [tex]\hat{O}[/tex] and thus Hermitian and thus because Hermitian Operators are commutative Hermitian + Hermitian = Hermitian ?
 
Well you basically have everything you need:

i) a hermitian operator fulfills: [tex]\hat{O}^{\dagger} = \hat{O}[/tex]

ii) [tex]A+B=B+A[/tex]

Then what is:

[tex](\hat{O} + \hat{O}^{\dagger}) ^{\dagger}[/tex]

?
 
oh i see, so...

[tex](\hat{O} + \hat{O}^{\dagger}) ^{\dagger}[/tex] = [tex]\hat{O}^{\dagger} + \hat{O}^{\dagger}^{\dagger}[/tex] = [tex]\hat{O} + \hat{O}^{\dagger}[/tex]

thus proving it is hermitian. Ok, so, in a similar vein...

[tex]\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}[/tex] = [tex](\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}) ^{\dagger}[/tex] = [tex]\hat{O}^{\dagger}\hat{O}^{\dagger}^{\dagger}[/tex] = [tex]\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}[/tex]

thus proving IT is hermitian ?
 
Bunting said:
Ok, so, in a similar vein...

[tex]\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}[/tex] = [tex](\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}) ^{\dagger}[/tex] = [tex]\hat{O}^{\dagger}\hat{O}^{\dagger}^{\dagger}[/tex] = [tex]\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}[/tex]

thus proving IT is hermitian ?

The end result is correct, but the second-last equality is wrong.
 
I don't understand, you now want to PROOVE that [tex]\hat{O}[/tex] is a hermitian operator? That is a property that is given to you as a fact, you can't proove that unless you know what [tex]\hat{O}[/tex] explicity is. Or do you want to proove that given [tex]\hat{O}[/tex] is hermitian, the product [tex]\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}[/tex] is hermitian?


By the way: [tex](AB)^{\dagger} = B^{\dagger}A^{\dagger}[/tex] so:

[tex](\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}) ^{\dagger} = (\hat{O}^{\dagger})^{\dagger}\hat{O}^{\dagger}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
malawi_glenn said:
Or do you want to proove that given [tex]\hat{O}[/tex] is hermitian, the product [tex]\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}[/tex] is hermitian?
Yes that's correct :) Sorry, I have difficulty explaining things I don't understand very well, but I am getting there.

The point of these seems to be that if you can conjugate the example and get back to your origonal statement then your statement is Hermitian (or at least this is the point of the questions it would seem).
 
Last edited:
  • #10
yes, that is the thing you want to do. Then you must do as I told you in post #8
 
  • #11
malawi_glenn said:
yes, that is the thing you want to do. Then you must do as I told you in post #8
Aye I did thanks! :)

Great, thank you all for your help!
 
  • #12
Bunting said:
Aye I did thanks! :)

Great, thank you all for your help!

Great, so you agree with me that

[tex](\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}) ^{\dagger} \neq \hat{O}^{\dagger}\hat{O}^{\dagger}^{\dagger}[/tex]

?
 
  • #13
Yeah, I was basically just being rubbish at maths/not thinking about it properly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K