Anti-commutation of parity operator

  • Thread starter Thread starter sydfloyd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator Parity
sydfloyd
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The parity operator is defined as P \psi (x) = \psi (-x). Show that P and p_x anti-commute, that is, \{ P,p_x \} = Pp_x + p_xP = 0.


Homework Equations


P \psi (x) = \psi (-x)
p_x = - i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}


The Attempt at a Solution


\{ P,p_x \} \psi(x) = ( Pp_x + p_xP ) \psi(x) = -i \hbar \left[ P \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \psi (x) + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} [ P \psi (x) ]\right] = -i \hbar \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial (-x)} \psi (-x) + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \psi (-x) \right] = -i \hbar \left[ - \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \psi (-x) + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \psi (-x) \right] = 0

Is it valid to say that P \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \psi (x) = \frac{\partial}{\partial (-x)} \psi (-x) ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
for the part where you found (pxP) this one is correct ..

as for your question, I won't say that I am 100% sure that it is valid .. but I would say that I am 80% agree with what you suggested in order to get your answer ..

what I know about the parity operator is that when you apply it on psi(x) you get psi(-x), so whenever you have x you simply change it to -x and vice versa (that would be applied to other things such as velocity and force) ..
 
I'm under the impression that the parity operator transforms x \rightarrow -x.

Let's say that f(x) = \frac{\partial \psi (x) }{\partial x} .

Then P f(x) = f(-x) = \frac{\partial \psi (-x) }{\partial (-x)} = - \frac{\partial \psi (-x) }{\partial x} , right?

I feel that something is wrong here.
 
sydfloyd said:
I'm under the impression that the parity operator transforms x \rightarrow -x.

Let's say that f(x) = \frac{\partial \psi (x) }{\partial x} .

Then P f(x) = f(-x) = \frac{\partial \psi (-x) }{\partial (-x)} = - \frac{\partial \psi (-x) }{\partial x} , right?

I feel that something is wrong here.

I told you I am not 100% sure .. but i still think it is right the way you did ..

hopefully there would be someone else to confirm what I think ..
 
sydfloyd said:
I'm under the impression that the parity operator transforms x \rightarrow -x.

Let's say that f(x) = \frac{\partial \psi (x) }{\partial x} .

Then P f(x) = f(-x) = \frac{\partial \psi (-x) }{\partial (-x)} = - \frac{\partial \psi (-x) }{\partial x} , right?
Right. I don't see anything wrong. Use a trial function of x, like a few terms of a polynomial, that doesn't have definite parity and see how it works.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top