When are the solutions for \hat{R} being Hermitian?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The operator \hat{R} defined as \hat{R} = |\psi_m\rangle \langle \psi_n| is Hermitian if and only if the eigenstates |m> and |n> are identical, i.e., |m> = |n>. This conclusion is derived from the condition |m> = \delta_{n,m}\left|m\right> and \left|m\right> = \delta_{n,m}\left|n\right>.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with Dirac notation for quantum states
  • Knowledge of eigenstates and eigenvalues
  • Basic principles of linear algebra as applied to quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the implications of eigenstate orthogonality
  • Learn about the role of delta functions in quantum state representations
  • Investigate the concept of linear combinations of quantum states
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and researchers focusing on operator theory and eigenstate analysis will benefit from this discussion.

Domnu
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
Let us define \hat{R} = |\psi_m\rangle \langle \psi_n| where \psi_n denotes the nth eigenstate of some Hermitian operator. When is \hat{R} Hermitian?

Solution?
Well, let us just call |psi_m> = |m> and |psi_n> = |n>. Now, we need

|m><n| = |n><m|

If we left multiply by <m| then we find that

<n| = 0

By symmetry, if we left multiply by <n| we find that

<m| = 0

But, clearly, by inspection, we find that R is Hermitian if |m> = |n>. Are these all the solutions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that you don't automatically find that <n| = 0 or <m| = 0 when you operate with the other operator. You have to include the possibility that n = m first. So really what you get is

\left|n\right&gt; = \delta_{n,m}\left|m\right&gt;

and

\left|m\right&gt; = \delta_{n,m}\left|n\right&gt;

as \left&lt;m\right|\left.n\right&gt; = \delta_{n,m} - so really the solution you found 'by inspection' was actually already considered. I just wanted to make sure you remembered this so that it doesn't slip by you in the future.

As for whether or not that's all the solutions, I don't see anything wrong with it. Even if you consider \left|n\right&gt; \propto \left|m\right&gt; + \left|l\right&gt;, for some state l \neq m, you would end up with either |l> = 0 or |l> = |m>. So unless I too have missed something I'd say those are your only solutions. (I guess you could consider |n> = |m> = 0 explicity).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K