MHB Calculating the effect of an operator on an arbitrary state

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fantini
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator State
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the effect of the operator $\widehat{R} \equiv \Pi_i (\widehat{Q} - q_i)$ on an arbitrary state $\Psi$, given that $\widehat{Q} \varphi_i = q_i \varphi_i$. Participants explore whether the result is zero, with one contributor suggesting that the commuting nature of the operators could simplify the calculations. The conversation reveals difficulties in manipulating the indices and performing the necessary product to demonstrate the result. Ultimately, the computation leads to a summation that hinges on the convergence of the series, raising questions about whether the final result indeed equals zero. The thread highlights the complexities involved in abstract quantum operator calculations.
Fantini
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Hello. I need help with the following:

Suppose a basis set of states $\varphi_i$. Calculate the effect of the operator $\widehat{R} \equiv \Pi_i \left( \widehat{Q} -q_i \right)$ on an arbitrary state $\Psi$, assuming that the equation $\widehat{Q} \varphi_i = q_i \varphi_i$ is satisfied.

I'm convinced that the answer is zero, but I don't know how to manipulate the indices to reflect that. I've calculated explicitly the cases for $n=2$ and $n=3$.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi Fantini,

It may help to note that all of the operators $Q-q_{i}$ commute; i.e.
$$(Q-q_{i})(Q-q_{j})=(Q-q_{j})(Q-q_{i})$$
If we use this observation, I think we can avoid dealing with messy indices.

Does this help move things in the right direction? Let me know if anything is unclear/not quite right.
 
Hi GJA. This doesn't really point me somewhere. I'm still lost at how to do the abstract computation. I'm conjecturing the result holds only for a finite index.
 
You can write
$$\Psi=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}a_j \, \varphi_j,$$
since $\{\varphi_j\}$ is a basis. Then compute
$$\hat{R} \, \Psi=\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(\hat{Q}-q_i) \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}a_j \, \varphi_j.$$
Can you continue?
 
No, I can't. I tried that, but I don't know how to actually perform the product/distribution to show that it equals zero.
 
Ok, so we get
\begin{align*}
\hat{R} \, \Psi&=\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(\hat{Q}-q_i) \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}a_j \, \varphi_j \\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}a_j \, \prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(\hat{Q}-q_i)\varphi_j \\
&=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}a_j \, \prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(\hat{Q} \,\varphi_j-q_i \, \varphi_j) \\
&=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}a_j \, \prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(q_j \,\varphi_j-q_i \, \varphi_j) \\
&=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(q_j -q_i ) \, a_j \, \varphi_j.
\end{align*}
This all assumes the necessary convergence so that we can switch the order of operations. Does the result look like zero?
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top