Average of Momentum for 1D Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the expectation and variance of momentum for a one-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillator (QHO) using the state function ##|\psi>=(1/\sqrt 2)(|n>+|n+1>)##. The user initially derived an expression for ##<\hat P>## but arrived at a non-zero result, which contradicted the expected outcome of zero. Through collaborative troubleshooting, it was identified that the user overlooked the contributions from the operators ##\hat a## and ##\hat a^\dagger##, particularly in handling the states ##|n+1>## and ##|n+2>##. Ultimately, the user corrected their calculations, confirming that the expectation value of momentum is indeed zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, specifically quantum harmonic oscillators.
  • Familiarity with Dirac notation and operators, particularly ##\hat a## and ##\hat a^\dagger##.
  • Knowledge of expectation values and variance in quantum mechanics.
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical manipulation of quantum states and operators.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of expectation values in quantum mechanics, focusing on momentum operators.
  • Explore the properties and applications of quantum harmonic oscillators in advanced quantum mechanics.
  • Learn about the implications of parity in quantum states and how it affects calculations.
  • Investigate the role of ladder operators in quantum mechanics and their impact on state transitions.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in quantum mechanics, physicists working with quantum systems, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum harmonic oscillators.

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