Timeline for About the postulates of quantum mechanics and self-adjointness
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19, 2015 at 0:03 | answer | added | Timaeus | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 14:16 | vote | accept | Daan Sim | ||
| Dec 4, 2014 at 16:11 | comment | added | lionelbrits | Sofia, the problem is that $p$ acting on states shifts them rightwards, out of the Hilbert space, so to speak. It's a matter of interpretation, because some people take the infinite well to be equivalent to a finite interval. For square integrable functions on that interval, $p$ is not self adjoint. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 13:41 | answer | added | yuggib | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 13:37 | answer | added | ACuriousMind♦ | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 11:19 | comment | added | Sofia | @Daan Sim: who told you that in an infinite well the linear momentum operator is not self-adjoint? And beware, this operator is NOT the derivative, but -ihbar multiplied by the first derivative. About checking each time, no it's not necessary. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 11:07 | comment | added | Valter Moretti | Self-adjointes does not depend on the Hilbert space. I mean, changes of ``representations'' are performed by means of unitary operators $A \to UAU^{-1}$ and they do not change self-adjointness properties of operators $A$. There is no guarantee to have a complete set of eigenvectors (more precisely a spectral measure) if the operator is only Hermitian and not self-adjoint, so the true condition on observables is self-adjointness and not Hermiticity... | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 8:47 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Dec 4, 2014 at 8:31 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 4, 2014 at 8:59 | |||||
| Dec 4, 2014 at 8:31 | history | asked | Daan Sim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |