What does * mean and how is it used

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrismariesan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean
chrismariesan
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm studying hermitian operators and in the equations it keeps using a * after a function i.e. f(x)*
I don't understand what it means and how it's used and why they keep moving it all around the equation...I know it's probably pretty easy and I just missed it in lecture but it's driving me crazy.
pleeeese help!:cry:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The * stands for complex conjugatation. So, if f(x) is the wavefunction, then f*(x) is the complex conjugate of the wavefunction.

If you're still unsure, then give an example of it "moves around an equation" and someone can clear it up for you.
 
Complex conjugate means the imaginary part of the function becomes negative, in case you didn't know that.
 
CaptainQuaser said:
Complex conjugate means the imaginary part of the function becomes negative, in case you didn't know that.

Just to remove any possible room for error: conjugation changes the sign of the imaginary part, so it could become positive as well (or, indeed, remain zero).
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
998
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top