Why Is the Expected Value a Linear Operator in Quantum Mechanics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KastorPhys
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Variance
KastorPhys
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
In a Quantum Mechanics Class, my tutor had shown me that
the variance Δa2

Δa2 = < ( a - < a > )2 >
= < a2 - 2 a < a > + < a >2 >
= < a2 > - 2 < a >< a > + < a >2
= < a2 > - 2 < a >2 + < a >2
= < a2 > - < a >2

and my questions are

i) why, in step 3,

< x - y + z > will become < x > - < y > + < z > ?

ii)why, also in step 3, the middle term,

< -2 a < a > > will finally become -2 < a >2 ?

Is it mean that < a < a > > = < a > < a > = < a >2 ?? but why?

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
KastorPhys said:
In a Quantum Mechanics Class, my tutor had shown me that
the variance Δa2

Δa2 = < ( a - < a > )2 >
= < a2 - 2 a < a > + < a >2 >
= < a2 > - 2 < a >< a > + < a >2
= < a2 > - 2 < a >2 + < a >2
= < a2 > - < a >2

and my questions are

i) why, in step 3,

< x - y + z > will become < x > - < y > + < z > ?

ii)why, also in step 3, the middle term,

< -2 a < a > > will finally become -2 < a >2 ?

Is it mean that < a < a > > = < a > < a > = < a >2 ?? but why?

Thanks!
I'm not familiar with your notation. One definition of the variance of a random variable X (from Wikipedia - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance) is:
##Var(X) = E[(X - \mu)^2]##
Here E[X] means the expected value of X.

The right side of the equation above can be expanded to yield
##Var(X) = E[(X - E[X])^2] \\
= E[X^2 - 2XE[X] + (E[X])^2] \\
= E[X^2 - 2E[X] E[X] +(E[X])^2] \\
= E[X^2] - (E[X])^2##
 
In all three questions the answer is the expected value is a linear operator. For an observable ##A## the expected value is defined as
##\langle A \rangle _{\phi} := \langle \phi | \, A \,| \phi \rangle##. Suppose that ##A## and ##B## are observables (mathematically they are operators on some Hilbert space), and let ##\alpha## and ##\beta## be complex numbers. Then
##\langle \alpha A + \beta B \rangle_\phi = \langle \phi | \alpha A + \beta B | \phi \rangle = \langle \phi | \alpha A | \phi \rangle + \langle \phi | \beta B | \phi \rangle =\alpha \langle \phi | A | \phi \rangle + \beta \langle \phi | B | \phi \rangle = \alpha \langle A \rangle_\phi + \beta \langle A \rangle_\phi##
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top