B Understanding Circumflex Operators: Get Help Now

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter regory
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator
regory
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi
I have a problem for understanding the difference between an circumflex operator and non-circumflex operador.
I'd appreciate your help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
regory said:
I have a problem for understanding the difference between an circumflex operator and non-circumflex operador.

Where are you seeing these terms used? Can you give a reference?
 
Today my physics teacher said that the circumflex operator (for example Ĥ) is different to the operator H because Ĥ is normalized. I have always used ^ for denote any operator and I don't find information about this difference.
 
regory said:
my physics teacher said that the circumflex operator (for example Ĥ) is different to the operator H because Ĥ is normalized.

Did you ask your teacher what they meant by "normalized", or what difference "normalizing" an operator makes?

regory said:
I don't find information about this difference.

Where have you looked?
 
PeterDonis said:
Did you ask your teacher what they meant by "normalized", or what difference "normalizing" an operator makes?

Or, did your teacher give explicit examples of a non-normalized operator ##H## and the corresponding normalized operator ##\hat{H}##?
 
I think we'd need a source, where these distinctions are made. It's not a common notation. Usually one uses a hat above a symbol to indicate that one deals with an operator rather than a (real or complex) number in quantum mechanics. I also don't know, what "normalization of an operator" means.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top