Confused by simple quantum problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter einai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused Quantum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a quantum mechanics problem involving a Hamiltonian and the expectation value of momentum for a bound state. Participants explore various methods to demonstrate that the expectation value of momentum for a bound state is zero, considering theoretical approaches and mathematical formalism.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Hamiltonian and expresses confusion about showing that =0.
  • Another participant suggests multiple approaches, including a brute force method and hints at the role of the momentum operator in three dimensions.
  • A different participant notes that for a bound state, the wavefunction approaches zero at infinity, allowing the use of integration by parts to relate momentum and position expectation values.
  • One participant contemplates the action of the momentum operator on the energy eigenstate and questions the orthogonality of the resulting state.
  • A later reply indicates a realization involving the commutation relation between momentum and position operators, suggesting a potential resolution to the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to demonstrate the expectation value of momentum for a bound state, with multiple methods and interpretations being discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the properties of the wavefunction and the operators involved are not explicitly stated, and the discussion includes varying levels of mathematical rigor and clarity.

einai
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Hi, I came across a problem which seems to be pretty simple, but I'm stuck :confused: .

Given a Hamiltonian:
[tex]H=\frac{\vec{p}^2}{2m}+V(\vec{x})[/tex]

If |E> is a bound state of the Hamiltonian with energy eigenvalue E, show that: [tex]<E| \vec{p} |E>=0[/tex]

-----------------------------------
So I've been trying something like this:

[tex]\frac{1}{2m}<E|\vec{p} \cdot \vec{p}|E> + <E|V(\vec{x})|E> = E<E|E> = E[/tex]

but I have no idea how to proceed from here.

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
there's several ways to do this, one elegant way, one brute force way, one abstract mathematical way (probably not suitable if this is a first course).

I'll give you a hint on the brute force way. You are going to want to think of what the operator P is. Strictly speaking, in three dimensions it looks like

P = -i hbar * del. In one dimension its p = -i hbar d/dx

Use the Schroedinger formalism and plow away =)

The abstract method hint is to think of what P does to your state space. Hmm, it looks like a translational operator. Maybe what you are looking for is a statement of translational symmetry.
 
for a bound state, the wavefunction drops to zero at infinity, which allows you to use integration by parts to show that

[tex]\langle p\rangle=m\frac{d\langle x\rangle}{dt}[/tex]

and in a stationary state (i.e. energy eigenvalue), all expectation values are time independent, so the derivative vanishes.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Haelfix and lethe :redface: .

Haelfix said:
P = -i hbar * del. In one dimension its p = -i hbar d/dx

Use the Schroedinger formalism and plow away =)

I thought about using the operator form of p, but I wasn't sure how it acts on the energy eigenstate |E>. Can I just say that after it takes the x derivative of |E>, the state becomes orthorgonal to the original |E>, ie,

[tex]<E|-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}|E> = <E|E'> =0[/tex]

because |E'> is now orthorgonal to |E>?

Hmm...I don't think I'm doing the right thing.
 
Last edited:
I think I figured it out. I used the commutation relation p = - i m hbar*[H,x].
Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 167 ·
6
Replies
167
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K