Why isn't p^4 Hermitian for hydrogen-like l=0 wavefunctions?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter scorpion990
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hermitian Wavefunctions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Hermiticity of the operator {\hat{p}}^4 in the context of hydrogen-like wavefunctions with angular momentum quantum number l = 0. Participants explore the implications of this property for perturbation theory as presented in Griffiths' textbook, particularly focusing on the conditions under which operators are considered Hermitian.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why {\hat{p}}^4 is not Hermitian, arguing that since the momentum operator {\hat{p}} is Hermitian, the expression <ψ|{\hat{p}}^4 ψ> should also hold true.
  • Another participant counters that the initial proof fails because it neglects boundary terms, which are crucial for establishing the Hermiticity of operators.
  • A third participant suggests that the radial momentum operator may not be self-adjoint on the half line from 0 to infinity, implying a potential issue with the domain of the operator.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the initial proof regarding the Hermiticity of {\hat{p}}^4, indicating that there is no consensus on the matter. The discussion remains unresolved as participants explore the implications of boundary conditions and operator domains.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to boundary terms and the self-adjointness of operators in specific domains, which are not fully resolved within the conversation.

scorpion990
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Sorry if this question has been asked a million times.

Either way, I'm working my way through Griffiths. It's a fantastic book--he doesn't try to slip anything past the reader. He is completely honest, and he doesn't abuse mathematics the way most authors do (screwing around with the Dirac delta function to force a normalization constant on the free particle wavefunctions when it's really just there for convenience, etc)

On that note, I'm working on the perturbation theory chapter. He attempts to correct the hydrogen-like wavefunction energies by applying a relativistic perturbation term. He writes down the relativistic energies, expands it in a power series in the momentum operator, and then applies the usual canonical substitution. The footnote of the page says that {\hat{p}}^4 is actually NOT a Hermitian operator when l = 0 (and the hermicity of the perturbation term was assumed in the derivation of the theory), so he says that pertubration theory isn't actually valid in this case. My question is... why isn't {\hat{p}}^4 Hermitian??

If I understand correctly, the momentum operator is Hermitian, and therefore,
&lt;ψ|\hat{p} ψ&gt;=&lt;\hat{p}ψ| ψ&gt;

If this is true, then why isn't this?
&lt;ψ|{\hat{p}}^4 ψ&gt; =&lt; ψ|{\hat{p}}^2 {\hat{p}}^2 ψ&gt;= &lt; {\hat{p}}^2 ψ|{\hat{p}}^2 ψ&gt;=&lt; {\hat{p}}^4 ψ| ψ&gt;

After all, of course {\hat{p}}^2 is Hermitian. At the end of the chapter, there is an exercise that attempts to answer my question. From skimming it, it appears that this is so because a boundary term doesn't vanish. Still, the proof that I wrote above should work for any wavefunction, and I'm not seeing where it fails. I'm really missing something here!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
scorpion990 said:
Still, the proof that I wrote above should work for any wavefunction
No, it doesn't, your proof involves dropping the boundary terms. Just think about how to prove p is Hermitian in the first place, and why we need wavefunction to vanish at infinity for p to be Hermitian.
 
I see. Thanks!
 
I am not sure what p is. I suppose you mean the radial momentum operator, which is not self-adjoint on the half line 0 to infinity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K