When can one clear the operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the algebra of operators in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the manipulation of projection operators and the conditions under which operators can be moved within expressions involving bras and kets. The scope includes theoretical aspects of operator algebra and its implications in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the conditions under which the operator can be moved in the expression involving projections, suggesting that a Kronecker delta might result from such manipulation.
  • Another participant presumes that the expansion states are eigenstates of the operator ##\hat A##, which could allow for the operator to be moved, but later clarifies that the states are from an arbitrary orthonormal basis.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the nature of the states, asking what the action of the operator on these states would be if they are not eigenstates.
  • One participant notes that they have seen operators moved in expressions without the states being eigenstates, providing an example to illustrate this point.
  • Another participant inquires about the relationship between the operator and the bras and kets, questioning if the operator is "glued" to the left ket and whether the bra can be moved around.
  • A later reply introduces a linear algebra analogy, comparing bras and kets to vectors and operators to matrices, which helps clarify the manipulation of these elements.
  • One participant acknowledges the analogy and reflects on the ease of the concept once understood.
  • Another participant suggests a resource (Ballentine, ch1) that may help with similar questions regarding operator algebra.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions for moving operators in expressions. There is no consensus on the implications of the states being non-eigenstates of the operator, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific rules governing these manipulations.

Contextual Notes

Participants do not clarify the assumptions regarding the nature of the operator ##\hat A## or the specific properties of the arbitrary orthonormal basis used in the expansions, leaving some aspects of the discussion open to interpretation.

Ernesto Paas
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi all!
I'm having problems understanding the operator algebra. Particularly in this case:
Suppose I have this projection ## \langle \Phi_{1} | \hat{A} | \Phi_{2} \rangle ## where the ##\phi's ## have an orthonormal countable basis.
If I do a state expansion on both sides then I suppose I'd get this: \sum_{n,m} \langle n | b_{n}^* \, \hat{A} \, c_{m} | m \rangle
And what's to stop me from moving the operator to the left and getting a kronecker-delta?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I presume your expansion states are eigenstates of ##\hat A##? If so, then I'd say "yes..."
 
strangerep said:
I presume your expansion states are eigenstates of ##\hat A##? If so, then I'd say "yes..."
Ah no... Sorry for not pointing that out. They are just of the same same arbitrary orthonormal basis.
 
Oh, well, if your expansion states are not eigenstates of ##\hat A##, then... what are they? E.g., what is $$\hat A |m\rangle ~=~ ?$$
 
I don't know, that's the problem. I've seen bras and kets being moved around without being eigenstates of an operator. Like in this case $$ \langle a | b \rangle \langle c1 | A | c2 \rangle \langle d | e \rangle = \langle a | b \rangle \langle d | e \rangle \langle c1 | A | c2 \rangle $$
 
Is the operator like glued to the left ket? Can I move the bra around?
 
Think of the bra ##\langle a|## as a row vector "##a^T##'', the ket ##|b\rangle## as a column vector "##b##", and the operator ##\hat A## as a matrix ##A##. I'll write it the overall expression as ##a^T A b##. Does that much make sense?
(I'm not sure how much ordinary linear algebra you already know.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ernesto Paas
Ok it hadn't occurred to me to think of them in that way. It wouldn't make sense to do a commutation there if the rows didn't equal the columns. Nevertheless, moving scalars around wouldn't be a problem.

Thanks, it was actually really easy...
 
More generally, see the second line of my signature below... :oldbiggrin:

Ballentine, ch1, can help a lot with these sort of questions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ernesto Paas

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
329
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K