Proving Non-Degeneracy in Position-Momentum Basis of Quantum Mechanics

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the non-degeneracy of the position and momentum eigenstates in quantum mechanics, specifically referencing the basis formed by the sets \{|\mathbf{x'}\rangle\} and \{|\mathbf{p'}\rangle\}. The original poster seeks a proof of the non-degeneracy of these eigenvalues, as mentioned in J J Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics, while acknowledging the continuous spectrum of the operators involved.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of completeness and orthonormality of the eigenstates, questioning how these relate to non-degeneracy. They discuss the definitions of position and momentum spaces and whether non-degeneracy is an assumption or a consequence of the basis properties.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and implications of the eigenstates in the context of quantum mechanics. Some participants suggest that the notation used for the states implies non-degeneracy, while others consider the possibility of constructing extended spaces that could introduce degeneracy. The discussion remains open with various interpretations being examined.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem involves infinite-dimensional spaces, which may differ from finite-dimensional cases regarding eigenvalue degeneracy. There is also a mention of the need for clarity on how non-degeneracy is defined within the framework of quantum mechanics.

yogeshbua
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


We claim that [tex]\{|\mathbf{x'}\rangle\}[/tex] and [tex]\{|\mathbf{p'}\rangle\}[/tex] form a basis for our space. (Position and momentum basis.)
In J J Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics, it is said (indirectly) that the eigenvectors of the corresponding operators, x and p, which form the sets given above, are all such that each eigen-value is non-degenerate...
What, pray, is the proof of the non-degeneracy?

Homework Equations


We know that each of the operators has a continuous spectrum.
We know that each operator is such that x|x'>=x'|x'> (and similarly for p operator.)
And that [tex]\int dx'|\mathbf{x'}\rangle\langle\mathbf{x'}| = I[/tex] , the Identity operator; the latter point being the quantification of 'completeness + orthonormality'.
All of the above three are assumptions...

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried a lot, but decided to ask you all when I noticed that when we said that the eigen set of either operator is complete, we said it is equivalent to <x'|x''> = delta(x' - x'')... which itself entails non-degeneracy! What more fundamental equations/ properties of the eigen set of the operators do we have to work with, to prove the non-degeneracy?

Modified: I'd said '...we said it is equivalent to <x'|x''> = delta(x' - x'')... which itself entails non-degeneracy...'
I'm sorry. This statement is NOT equivalent to completeness... I repeat, this statement is NOT equivalent to completeness.
Orthonormality and non-degeneracy, together, are sufficient to imply this statement... Completeness doesn't get into the picture.

Please correct anything you think is wrong...
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


You already said it in the first line. Position space is DEFINED as the basis for wavefunctions. So the state vector for a wavefunction f(x) is integral f(x')|x'>dx'. If the x operator were degenerate that would mean there were two different states |x1> and |x2> with the same eigenvalue c. I.e. x|x1>=c|x1> and x|x2>=c|x2>. But x|x1>=x1|x1> and x|x2>=x2|x2>. So c=x1=x2. The states are DEFINED to be nondegenerate. You don't have to prove it.
 
Last edited:


Dick said:
You already said it in the first line. Position space is DEFINED as the basis for wavefunctions. So the state vector for a wavefunction f(x) is integral f(x')|x'>dx'. If the x operator were degenerate that would mean there were two different states |x1> and |x2> with the same eigenvalue c. I.e. x|x1>=c|x1> and x|x2>=c|x2>. But x|x1>=x1|x1> and x|x2>=x2|x2>. So c=x1=x2. The states are DEFINED to be nondegenerate. You don't have to prove it.

So may we say that 'We assume the eigenvalues are nondegenerate'.
Or does non-degeneracy follow from the assumption that the eigen-ket set is a basis? (It should not, for one can have an eigen-basis which includes degenerate eigen-values; at least for finite dimensional spaces. Here, it's an infinite dimension space. So what is it that happens differently in case of infinite dimensions that makes the eigenvalues non-degenerate? Or, is it an assumption?)

Oh! And I forgot... Thank you!

Another thing... I accept that c=x1=x2. But this does NOT imply that |x1>=|x2> unless we have assumed non-degeneracy... Is this what you're trying to tell? That the mere fact that we use the notation |x1> and |x2> entails non-degeneracy? Otherwise, we couldn't have labelled them as |x1> and |x2>?

Thanks again...
 
Last edited:


Yes, I guess you could say it's implicit in the notation. The states are labeled by their eigenvalues. I suppose you could construct an extended space by artificially adding another label |x,n>, so now you could say x|x1,n1>=x1|x1,n1> and x|x1,n2>=x1|x1,n2> so |x1,n1> and |x1,n2> are degenerate. But why? We are trying to define what position space is. Not some exotic extension.

BTW, once you've defined position space the nondegeneracy of momentum eigenvectors also follows from a unique solution to an ODE, right? You could also work the other way around, by defining momentum space first and deriving the position eigenvectors.
 


Dick said:
Yes, I guess you could say it's implicit in the notation. The states are labeled by their eigenvalues. I suppose you could construct an extended space by artificially adding another label |x,n>, so now you could say x|x1,n1>=x1|x1,n1> and x|x1,n2>=x1|x1,n2> so |x1,n1> and |x1,n2> are degenerate. But why? We are trying to define what position space is. Not some exotic extension.

BTW, once you've defined position space the nondegeneracy of momentum eigenvectors also follows from a unique solution to an ODE, right? You could also work the other way around, by defining momentum space first and deriving the position eigenvectors.

Agreed... Thank you, again.
Do I need to mark the question as solved/ whatever? How?
Cheers.
 


yogeshbua said:
Agreed... Thank you, again.
Do I need to mark the question as solved/ whatever? How?
Cheers.

You're welcome! It might be under 'Thread Tools', I'm not sure, I haven't done it. If you can't find it, don't worry about it. It's not obligatory.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K