3
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ basically each H operator is an observable $\endgroup$
    – user65081
    May 12, 2019 at 13:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ but see physics.stackexchange.com/q/27038 $\endgroup$
    – user65081
    May 12, 2019 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Wolphramjonny can you have a H operator without a complete set of orthogonal eigenstates? $\endgroup$
    – user572780
    May 12, 2019 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ I dont remember the proof, but I am 99% sure the answer is no $\endgroup$
    – user65081
    May 12, 2019 at 13:10
  • $\begingroup$ you should wait for someone with better knowledge to confirm $\endgroup$
    – user65081
    May 12, 2019 at 13:12

3 Answers 3

3
$\begingroup$

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 $p=\hbar k$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean observable is a number? All observables are operators. You can measure an observable and get a real number. $\endgroup$
    – user572780
    May 12, 2019 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ 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 $p$. $\endgroup$
    – SuperCiocia
    May 12, 2019 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ 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". $\endgroup$
    – user572780
    May 12, 2019 at 13:08
  • $\begingroup$ 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". $\endgroup$
    – SuperCiocia
    May 12, 2019 at 13:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Then it depends on what you mean by “physical quantity”. I would say it’s the result of the measurement. $\endgroup$
    – SuperCiocia
    May 12, 2019 at 13:19
2
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ All observables are Hermitian operators but are all Hermitian operators also observables? $\endgroup$
    – user572780
    May 12, 2019 at 18:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 18:37
2
$\begingroup$

First, a mathematical subtlety. In finite dimensional Hilbert spaces spaces, every self-adjoint operator can be represented by a Hermitian matrix, i.e. one that is equal to its conjugate transpose, and every Hermitian matrix corresponds to a self-adjoint operator. However, in infinite dimensional spaces, as it is often the case for the Hilbert spaces describing quantum systems, a symmetric operator $A$—which in finite dimensions is equivalent to a Hermitian matrix—is only self-adjoint if its domain is the same as the one of its adjoint $A^\dagger$, namely $\mathrm{dom}\ A = \mathrm{dom}\ A^\dagger$. A self-adjoint operator, though, is always symmetric. This being said, every observable corresponds to a self-adjoint operator.

Nevertheless, it is generally false to suppose the converse: not every self-adjoint operator is an observable, and a typical example of such is the density operator $\hat{\rho}$. More on the subject can be read here: not every self-adjoint operator is an observable.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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