Why Does the Expectation Value Depend on the Space Used?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expectation value of a quantum mechanical operator, specifically , and its dependence on whether calculations are performed in position space or momentum space. Participants explore the implications of this dependence, the mathematical derivations involved, and the potential issues arising from the wave function's properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the expectation value should be the same regardless of the space used, while others express confusion over differing results obtained in momentum and position spaces.
  • One participant presents calculations showing in momentum space yielding b^2 \hbar^2 + p_0^2, while in position space it results in -b^2 \hbar^2 + p_0^2.
  • Concerns are raised about the integrals involved, particularly the behavior of the wave function at x=0, which may affect the results due to its non-differentiability at that point.
  • Another participant suggests that the singular behavior at x=0 could lead to discrepancies in the computed expectation values.
  • Some participants recommend performing integrals by hand or using specific commands in Mathematica to ensure proper evaluation.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of the Heaviside function and Dirac delta function in the context of the wave function's derivatives.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the results, questioning the dimensional consistency of the expressions derived.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the choice of space should not affect the expectation value, suggesting that it is merely a basis choice.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the dependence of the expectation value on the space used, the implications of the wave function's properties, and the correctness of the mathematical derivations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the wave function's behavior at x=0, the need for careful evaluation of integrals, and the potential for high-frequency components in the momentum spectrum to influence results.

cjellison
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I had thought that the expectation value would be the same...whether you did it in momentum space or position space. Could someone explain what is going on in this particular problem?

[tex] \psi (x) = \sqrt{b} e^{-b |x| + i p_0 x / \hbar }[/tex]

Taking the Fourier transform, I can get this function in momentum space.

[tex] \phi (p) = \sqrt{\frac{2b}{\pi \hbar}} \thickspace \frac{\hbar^2 b}{\hbar^2b^2+(p-p_0)^2}[/tex]

Now, if I compute [itex]<p^2>[/itex], I should get the same value no matter which space I choose to do it in. However, this does not seem to be the case. I computed these by hand...and by Mathematica...so I am fairly confident that they are correct (just confusing).

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> <p^2> &= \int \phi^* p^2 \phi \, dp = b^2 \hbar^2 + p_0^2\\<br /> <p^2> &= \int \psi^* \left(\frac{\hbar}{i}\right)^2 \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2} \, dx = -b^2 \hbar^2 + p_0^2<br /> \end{align*}<br /> [/itex]<br /> <br /> As you can see...and please carry out the computations if you doubt them...the expectation value seems to depend on the space in which I computed it. I thought that this was NOT supposed to happen. Any ideas?[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cjellison said:
[tex] <p^2> &= \int \phi^* p^2 \phi \, dp = b^2 \hbar^2 + p_0^2[/tex]

I get:

[tex] \langle p^2 \rangle = b\sqrt b(\hbar^2 b+p_0^2)[/tex]
I'm having trouble getting Maple to evaluate the other one...
 
Are u both sure with those integrals??I mean,the initial wave function is different for the intervals minus infinity to zero and o to plus infinity.This should be taken into consideration for all three integrals (the Fourier transform and the 2 EV-s).
I would advise you to do those integrals by hand,or maybe with the help of an integrals book.
One other thing:
Galileo said:
[tex] \langle p^2 \rangle = b\sqrt b(\hbar^2 b+p_0^2)[/tex]

That's definitely wrong.Check out the units.The constant "b" has the dimension length to the minus one.
 
Hi

The wave function you consider has no derivative for x=0.
Its second-derivative should be a Dirac function for x=0.

I think your strange results are related to this.
Probably you dropped the terms related to the singular behaviour at x=0.

Also, be careful with Mathematica because such problems can easily be missed.
By the way, I would be interrested to know how you did the integral in Mathematica.
How did you let Mathematica know that the integral converges for x->Infinity?

Michel
 
Here we go with the details:

[tex] \psi (x) = \sqrt{b} e^{-b |x| + i p_0 x / \hbar }[/tex]

Then,

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \phi (p) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \hbar}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi(x) e^{-i p x /<br /> \hbar} \, dx \\<br /> &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \hbar}} \left( \int_{-\infty}^{0} \sqrt{b} e^{bx + ip_0 x/\hbar}<br /> e^{-i p x / \hbar} \, dx + \int_{0}^{\infty} \sqrt{b} e^{-bx + ip_0 x/\hbar}<br /> e^{-i p x / \hbar} \, dx \right) \\ &= \sqrt{\frac{2 b}{\pi \hbar}} \thickspace<br /> \frac{\hbar^2 b}{\hbar^2b^2 + (p - p_0)^2}<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

Now,

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> <p^2> &= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \phi^* p^2 \phi \, dp\\&\\<br /> &= \frac{2b^3\hbar^3}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}<br /> \frac{p^2}{[b^2\hbar^2+(p-p_0)^2]^2} \, dp\\&\\<br /> &= \frac{2b^3\hbar^3}{\pi} \, \frac{\pi (b^2\hbar^2+p_0^2)}{2b^3\hbar^3}\\&\\<br /> &= b^2 \hbar^2 + p_0^2<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

If you want to do this in Mathematica, you don't have to do any special tricks.
Just set up the problem and integrate. However, you must use the Assuming[]
command. For example:

Assuming[ b > 0 && pz > 0 && h > 0, Integrate[p^2 /(b^2 h^2 + (p -pz)^2)^2, {p, -Infinity, Infinity}]]

In the code above, I am letting [itex]h[/itex] be [itex]\hbar[/itex] and
[itex]pz[/itex] be [itex]p_0[/itex].

lalbatros said:
The wave function you consider has no derivative for x=0.
Its second-derivative should be a Dirac function for x=0.

I think your strange results are related to this.

I suspect you are correct, but I would like some help figuring out that exact
location of the mistake. I would like to think that the x=0 point wouldn't
matter since it is set of measure zero...but perhaps not.

Now, we do it in position space. Sorry, I don't have the in-between
steps...basically you have to break the integral up into two separate integrals.
I will provide Mathematica code to get the answer.

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> <p^2> &= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi^* \left(\frac{h}{i}\right)^2<br /> \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2} \, dx\\<br /> &= \int_{-\infty}^{0} \sqrt{b} e^{bx - ip_0 x/\hbar}\left(\frac{h}{i}\right)^2<br /> \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}(\sqrt{b} e^{bx + ip_0 x/\hbar}) \, dx+<br /> \int_{0}^{\infty} \sqrt{b} e^{-bx - ip_0 x/\hbar}\left(\frac{h}{i}\right)^2<br /> \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}(\sqrt{b} e^{-bx + ip_0 x/\hbar}) \, dx\\ <br /> &=-\frac{1}{2}(b \hbar + i p_0)^2 + -\frac{1}{2}(b\hbar-i p_0)^2\\<br /> &=-b^2\hbar^2 + p_0^2<br /> \end{align*}<br /> [/itex]<br /> <br /> Sample mathematica code...I could have defined functions, but I took the lazy way out. This code should work in Mathematica 5.<br /> <br /> ---begin code----<br /> <br /> psineg = Sqrt<b> Exp[b x + I pz x /h];<br /> psinegcon = Sqrt<b> Exp[b x - I pz x /h];<br /> psipos = Sqrt<b> Exp[-b x + I pz x /h];<br /> psiposcon = Sqrt<b> Exp[-b x - I pz x /h];<br /> <br /> Assuming[h > 0 && pz > 0 && b > 0, Integrate[psinegcon (h/I)^2 D[psineg, {x, 2}], {x, -Infinity, 0}]]<br /> <br /> Assuming[h > 0 && pz > 0 && b > 0, Integrate[psiposcon (h/I)^2 D[psipos, {x, 2}], {x, 0, Infinity}]]<br /> <br /> ---end code---<br /> <br /> Then just add the two results...or have Mathematica do it.<br /> <br /> Anyway, what we see is that the expectation value is different depending on the space in which I computed it. I also believe that this could be related to the fact that [itex]\psi[/itex] is not differentiable at [itex]x=0[/itex]. However, I also feel that the math is correct...so where did I go wrong? As far as [itex]\psi[/itex] not being differentiable at zero, it seems like this might not matter since I break the integral into two separate integrals...when I take the derivative over these secondary ranges, [itex]\psi[/itex] is differentiable---and the point x=0 is no longer an issue.</b></b></b></b>[/tex]
 
Hello

I think you can go through the same calculations, but you should not forget the contribution at x=0.
You simply need to take the following rules into account (I think they are ok, but check it):

[tex]\frac{d|x|}{dx} = 2H(x)-1[/tex]​
[tex]\frac{dH(x)}{dx} = \delta(x)[/tex]​
Where H(x) is the Heaviside function, (H(x)=0 for x<0 and 1 for x>0), and [tex]\delta(x)[/tex] is the Dirac distribution.

Thanks for your indications on Mathematica, I will try it at home this evening.
My version of Mathematica is more than 10 years old.
It does not know the "Assuming" function.
There is maybe a replacement, but I am not sure.

I hope you will get the correct results.
However, I am wondering now what is the physical meaning of all that?
Clearly the singularity at x=0 is associated with high frequency components in the momentum spectrum.

Your question triggered a vacuum in my recollections about quantum mechanics.
I can imagine that operators in different representations (x or p) are equal if their averages are always equal too, of course.
But why is it that p² in the different representations are obtained just by squaring in these two representations.
I think this is true for any function of operator.
 
It does matter if [tex]\psi[/tex] is not differentiable at 0. The only way it wouldn't matter is if as the integrand was evaluated tending to 0 from the right and tending to 0 from the left, the limit was the same. If this isn't the case, then you must find another way to evaluate the improper integral.

masud.
 
It doesn't matter what you are calculating the expectation value of, you should always get the same result in any basis. Your choice of space is just a choice of basis which you integrate out.
 
cjellison said:
I had thought that the expectation value would be the same...whether you did it in momentum space or position space. Could someone explain what is going on in this particular problem?

[tex] \psi (x) = \sqrt{b} e^{-b |x| + i p_0 x / \hbar }[/tex]

Taking the Fourier transform, I can get this function in momentum space.

[tex] \phi (p) = \sqrt{\frac{2b}{\pi \hbar}} \thickspace \frac{\hbar^2 b}{\hbar^2b^2+(p-p_0)^2}[/tex]

Now, if I compute [itex]<p^2>[/itex], I should get the same value no matter which space I choose to do it in. However, this does not seem to be the case. I computed these by hand...and by Mathematica...so I am fairly confident that they are correct (just confusing).

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> <p^2> &= \int \phi^* p^2 \phi \, dp = b^2 \hbar^2 + p_0^2\\<br /> <p^2> &= \int \psi^* \left(\frac{\hbar}{i}\right)^2 \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2} \, dx = -b^2 \hbar^2 + p_0^2<br /> \end{align*}<br /> [/itex]<br /> <br /> As you can see...and please carry out the computations if you doubt them...the expectation value seems to depend on the space in which I computed it. I thought that this was NOT supposed to happen. Any ideas?[/tex]
[tex] <br /> A very good example to understand better the use of the unbounded operators and the basis change (or the Fourier transforms if you prefer).<br /> <br /> You have not the same results because lim_p p^2.phi(p) is not zero thus p^2.phi(p) is not square integrable. p^2|phi> does not belong to the hilbert space.<br /> Thus you cannot apply simply the basis transformation to p^2.phi(p) (you need to use distribution theory,i.e. enlarge the hilbert space, to recover the result).<br /> <br /> Seratend.[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
791
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K