Proof that the linear momentum operator is hermitian

Paul Black
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
hello
i have to proof that Px (linear momentum operator ) is hermitian or not
i have added my solution in attachments

please look at my solution and tell me if its correct


thank you all
 

Attachments

  • CCI05232014_00000.jpg
    CCI05232014_00000.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 3,731
  • CCI05232014_00001.jpg
    CCI05232014_00001.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 2,541
Physics news on Phys.org
There's a sign error in the last expression of the first page, but you "fixed" it in the next expression.

This looks OK to me, but of course you should explain why ##\left.\psi_b^*\psi_a\right|_{-\infty}^\infty=0##.
 
What is the domain of the linear momentum operator that you're looking at? You can't just look at arbirary wave functions, because then ##\psi_b^*\psi_a\vert_{-\infty}^{+\infty}## will not be zero. You need to restrict to special wave function which do have that property.

Another solution is that you use "distributional differentiation".
 
thank you for your answers
if i take a special function which satisfy the property then is my solution ok?
 
Yea, it looks OK to me.
 
ok thank you very much
 
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
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am looking at the Laughlin wave function and it contains the term $$\prod_{j<k}^{N}\left(z_j-z_k\right)^q$$ In Wikipedia the lower index on ##\Pi## is ##1\le i<j\le N## and there is no upper index. I'm not sure what either mean. For example would $$\prod_{j<k}^{N}\left(z_j-z_k\right)^q=\prod_{k=2}^{N}\left[\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}\left(z_j-z_k\right)^q\right]?$$ (It seems that ##k## cannot be 1 because there would be nothing to multiply in the second product). I'm not sure what else the...
Back
Top