Average of Momentum for 1D Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the expectation and variance of momentum for a one-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillator (QHO) at a given time, starting from a superposition of states. The original poster attempts to calculate the expectation value of momentum using Dirac operators and expresses confusion regarding the outcome, which is expected to be zero.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the application of Dirac operators and the implications of the calculations involving the states of the QHO. Questions arise about the correctness of the calculations related to the annihilation and creation operators, particularly regarding the handling of the state indices.

Discussion Status

Several participants have pointed out potential mistakes in the original poster's calculations, particularly concerning the application of the annihilation operator to the state |n+1>. There is ongoing clarification about the terms that should be included or excluded in the calculations, with some participants suggesting that the original poster reconsider their approach. The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and corrections without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Contextual Notes

The original poster references a specific expected outcome of zero for the expectation value, which raises questions about the assumptions made in their calculations. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity introduced by using a generic integer n in the calculations, as opposed to a limited set of states.

LizardWizard
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
For a 1D QHO we are given have function for ##t=0## and we are asked for expectation and variance of P at some time t.

##|\psi>=(1/\sqrt 2)(|n>+|n+1>)## Where n is an integer

So my idea was to use Dirac operators ##\hat a## and ##\hat a^\dagger## and so I get the following solution

##<\hat P>=<\psi|\hat P|\psi>=i \sqrt {m\omega\hbar/2} <\psi|(\hat a^\dagger - \hat a^)|\psi>=##
##=i \sqrt {m\omega\hbar/2}(1/\sqrt 2) (1/\sqrt 2)(<n|+<n+1|(\hat a^\dagger-\hat a)|n>+|n+1>)##

Knowing that
##\hat a^\dagger |\psi_n>= \sqrt {n+1} |\psi_{n+1}>##
##\hat a |\psi_n>= \sqrt {n} |\psi_{n-1}>##


I eventually arrived at

##<\hat P>=i\sqrt{m\omega\hbar/8}(-\sqrt n <n|n> + \sqrt{n+1} <n+1|n+1>)##

However the answer is supposed to be 0, did I do something wrong or could I perhaps make use of the fact that ##\sqrt{n+1}-\sqrt n ## for ##n\to\infty## equal to 0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems that you made a mistake when calculating ##\hat{a}|n+1\rangle##, what value did you get for this?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LizardWizard
blue_leaf77 said:
It seems that you made a mistake when calculating ##\hat{a}|n+1\rangle##, what value did you get for this?
That would be ##\sqrt n |n>## but I think I did forget the terms for ##\hat a^\dagger|n+1>## and <n+1| which would be ##\sqrt{n+2}|n+2>## and the corresponding bra.
 
LizardWizard said:
That would be ##\sqrt n |n>##.
No, that's wrong. So, it's clear now that this is at least one of the mistakes.
LizardWizard said:
but I think I did forget the terms for ##\hat a^\dagger|n+1>##
The above expression will give rise to a term proportional to ##|n+2\rangle## in the right part of the braket. Meanwhile in the left part of the braket there is no ##\langle n+2|##. This means, you can safely abandon the term ##\hat a^\dagger|n+1>##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LizardWizard
I knew there was a reason I didn't include the |n+2> term in the first place. However what exactly is wrong about that other result?
It follows from applying ##\hat a |\psi_n>= \sqrt {n} |\psi_{n-1}>## to |n+1>
 
LizardWizard said:
I knew there was a reason I didn't include the |n+2> term in the first place. However what exactly is wrong about that other result?
It follows from applying ##\hat a |\psi_n>= \sqrt {n} |\psi_{n-1}>## to |n+1>
No, it doesn't. For instance, note that the index of the state in the left hand side is the same as the thing under the square root in the right hand side. Now what happen to this thing if the index of state in the left hand side is changed to ##n+1##?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LizardWizard
Oh I see, I found it weird because I have an example from class that makes uses it the way I said, but in the case we only had two possible n-states 0 and 1 instead of a generic integer n, I suposse that's what makes the difference.

Okay, I redid the calculations and this pretty much breaks all parity (except for one that canceled itself) and the result is 0. Thank you for the help.
 

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K