Calculating Average Values and Proving Inequality for Particle Potential - N^nX

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on applying the Virial Theorem to a particle with potential \(\lambda X^n\) and Hamiltonian \(H = \frac{P^2}{2m} + V(x)\). Participants clarify the calculation of the commutator, noting a sign error in the provided expression. The key task is to find the average values of kinetic energy <T> and potential energy <V> and demonstrate that they satisfy the relationship \(2<T> = n<V>\). The hint regarding the Heisenberg equations of motion is emphasized as crucial for deriving the average values. Ultimately, the problem is solved by correctly applying these principles.
ultimateguy
Messages
122
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] Virial Theorem

Homework Statement


A particle has a potential \lambda X^n and Hamiltonian H = \frac{P^2}{2m} + V(x)

Knowing that the commutator of H and XP is i\hbar(n\lambda X^n - \frac{P^2}{m}), find the average values <T> and <V> and verify that they satisfy:

2&lt;T&gt;=n&lt;V&gt;


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



The question asked to calculate the commutator and that is what I found, but I'm lost as to how to get the average values and proove the inequality.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The question doesn't actually ask you to calculate the commutator; it gives you the value of the commutator (though with a sign error; it should read ...-P^2/m).

The next step is to recall what the commutator of any operator with the Hamiltonian gives you (Hint: Heisenberg EoM). After that you just have to take the time average on both sides, and take the limit of loooong times.
 
Last edited:
The question asked to calculate the [H, XP] commutator, I just didn't write it because I already found it and wanted to save time.

I'm not sure I understand the hint.
 
For an operator A, that is not explicitly time-dependent, (i\hbar) dA/dt is equal to a commutator. Does that help jog your memory?
 
Thank you! I solved the problem.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top