Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In position basis, we have,

$$\langle x \mid \hat p \mid \Psi(t) \rangle = -\imath \hbar \frac{\partial{\langle x \mid \Psi(t) \rangle}}{\partial{x}} $$

Now i know $\hat{p}$ is a hermitian operator which should be self adjoint.

The self adjoint operators are said to satisfy :

$$\langle A \psi \mid \phi \rangle = \langle \psi \mid A \phi \rangle$$

But i'm failed to workout the following :

$$ \langle x \mid \hat{p\dagger} \mid \Psi(t) \rangle$$

For ladder operator $\hat{a}$ i found $\hat{a\dagger}$ by conjugating in position basis. And clearly $\hat{a}$ is not hermitian because $$ \hat{a\dagger} \neq \hat{a}$$ in position basis. And thus $\hat{a}$ does not correspond to any observable.

But $\hat{p}$ is hermitian. but it seems, at position basis, complex conjugating $\hat{p}$ gives a different object.

Where i'm making a mistake here?

EDIT:

After posting the question i found some inconsistancies in my argument.

$$\hat a = \frac {\hat x}{\sqrt {\frac {2 \hbar}{m \omega}}} + \frac {i \hat p}{\sqrt {2 \hbar m \omega}}$$

is not a representation in any basis. Its just a operator relation with some scaling factor.

whereas $$-i \hbar \frac {\partial}{\partial x} $$ is a representation of $\hat p$ in postion $x$ basis.

So they should not be comparable.

But i still want to know whats $\hat{p \dagger}$ in position $x$ basis.

I just falsely took a wrong example.

share|improve this question
    
Where and why do the ladder operators come into the game? –  Fabian Dec 15 '12 at 17:10
    
see my edit. I was comparing falsely. I just asked how should i get a adjoint momentum operator in position basis. –  Aftnix Dec 15 '12 at 18:18
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

$\hat{p}$ is Hermitian and Hermitian operators $O$ satisfy, by definition,

$$\hat{O} = \hat{O}^\dagger$$

Adjoint is not synonym for complex. $\hat{p} = -i\hbar \nabla \rightarrow +i\hbar \nabla^\dagger \rightarrow -i\hbar \nabla =\hat{p}^\dagger$, but $\hat{p} \neq \hat{p}^*$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. Is there any general rule for getting adjoint for non matrix operators? –  Aftnix Dec 15 '12 at 18:20
    
@Aftnix $\hat{p}$ can be represented as a matrix, just an infinite-dimensional one. You might find my answer to this question useful. –  Mark Mitchison Dec 15 '12 at 18:27
    
@Aftnix: What do you mean by non matrix operators? –  juanrga Dec 15 '12 at 19:01
    
after going through linear algebra resources i found exact answer. Thanks for helping. –  Aftnix Dec 16 '12 at 18:24
    
The adjoin of the differential operator $\nabla^\dagger = -\nabla$ can be proved by integration by part. –  xslittlegrass Apr 7 at 23:53
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.