1

Everyone knows that this is needed to make eigenvalues real, but still why we enforcing such a structure at first place? An arbitrary operator can have as complex as real eigenvalues, we can simply throw away the complex one by claiming they are not physical.

I did some search about this, and it seems, alike what books usually claims, the real reason hidden in the fact that the eigenvalues should not be just real, but bounded from below, otherwise there will be no stable quantum systems.

Well, the last paragraph I concluded from reading multiple claims here and there, if that is true, can anybody elaborate this in a more rigor/strict way? If wrong please answer on the first part.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
TMS
  • 2,051
  • 3
    So... you're challenging that all observables should have real eigenvalues only? – Danu Oct 27 '15 at 12:05
  • 1
    Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/39602/2451 , http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27038/2451 , http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/75401/2451 , http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82613/2451 , http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/87551/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Oct 27 '15 at 12:15
  • Occam's razor may be a good point of view here...why should we complicate things allowing for complex values for observables, just to throw them away as non-physical? – yuggib Oct 27 '15 at 12:24
  • @yuggib in non relativistic theory, complex eigen energies (if you otherwise enforce global norm preservation) allows the flexibility to model spontaneous emission for example. – anon01 Oct 27 '15 at 12:40
  • 1
    @anon0909 I agree, still it is not something you observe, and an effective non-unitary model of a standard unitary quantum theory... – yuggib Oct 27 '15 at 12:43

0 Answers0