# Is there a difference between a Hermitian operator and an observable?

My poorly written lecture notes say that any Hermitian operator does have a complete set of orthogonal eigenstates with real corresponding eigenvalues and is therefore an observable.

In the article Observables, it is said that in order for a Hermitian operator to be observable its eigenvectors must form a complete set.

• basically each H operator is an observable – Wolphram jonny May 12 at 13:04
• – Wolphram jonny May 12 at 13:09
• @Wolphramjonny can you have a H operator without a complete set of orthogonal eigenstates? – user572780 May 12 at 13:09
• I dont remember the proof, but I am 99% sure the answer is no – Wolphram jonny May 12 at 13:10
• you should wait for someone with better knowledge to confirm – Wolphram jonny May 12 at 13:12

According to the postulates of quantum mechanics, each observable $$p$$ quantity is associated with an operator $$\hat{p}$$ that acts on the wavefunction $$\psi$$.

The relationship is given by the eigenvalue equation: $$\hat{p}\psi = p\psi.$$

$$\hat{p}$$ is an operator, which means nothing on its own. $$p$$ is the eigenvalues, the observable which is a number.

For instance, if $$p$$ is the momentum:

• $$\hat{p} = \frac{\hbar}{i}\nabla$$, i.e. a functional operator so quite useless on its own;

• Acting of a plane wave $$\psi = e^{ikx}$$, $$\hat{p}\psi = \hbar k\,\psi$$. I.e. the observable momentum is $$p=\hbar k$$.

• What do you mean observable is a number? All observables are operators. You can measure an observable and get a real number. – user572780 May 12 at 12:50
• All observables are represented by operators. The actual observable is something that you measure, so it has to be a number, i.e. not the function $\hat{p}$ but its eigenvalue $p$. – SuperCiocia May 12 at 12:53
• The Observable Wikipedia article says "an observable is a physical quantity that can be measured." It then goes on to say "In quantum physics, it is an operator". – user572780 May 12 at 13:08
• Semantic differences. When you measure the physical quantity, you get a number. IN order to get a number from the wavefunction $\psi$, you need to act on it with an operator. You could say "observable=operator" then, I would prefer "observable $\leftrightarrow$ operator". – SuperCiocia May 12 at 13:10
• Then it depends on what you mean by “physical quantity”. I would say it’s the result of the measurement. – SuperCiocia May 12 at 13:19

An operator need not be hermitian. For instance, the harmonic oscillator creation operator $$\hat a^\dagger$$ is not hermitian, and neither is the angular momentum lowering operator $$\hat L_-$$. Yet both are perfectly legitimate (linear) operators, i.e. they act linearly on a state and produce a different state.

Setting aside subtle points about domains of operators and self-adjointness, observables must be hermitian (in the sense that their matrix representations are hermitian matrices) because eigenvalues of hermitian matrices are real, which is good since in a lab we measure real (rather than complex) quantities. Moreover, hermitian matrices have a complete set of eigenvectors that spans the entire space.

Note that it is important to realize that this doesn’t imply that non-hermitian operators cannot have eigenvalues or eigenvectors, just that there’s no guarantee the eigenvalues are real and the eigenvectors for a complete set. The usual example of this is the harmonic oscillator coherent state $$\vert \alpha\rangle$$ (where $$\alpha$$ is any complex number) which is an eigenvector of the annihilation operator $$\hat a$$, with complex eigenvalue $$\alpha$$. The eigenvalue need NOT be real since $$\alpha$$ can be complex, and the coherent states form an overcomplete set of vectors for the Hilbert space of the harmonic oscillator.

• All observables are Hermitian operators but are all Hermitian operators also observables? – user572780 May 12 at 18:18
• It might be worth noting that $\hat{a}$ has an overcomplete basis of eigenfunctions because it is not only non-hermitian, but also non-normal ($[\hat{a},\hat{a}^\dagger]\ne 0$). A normal operator always has a nice orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions even if it is non-hermitian. – eyeballfrog May 12 at 18:37