Calculations with Dirac deltas and position/momentum operators

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating the matrix elements of the position operator \(\hat{x}\) in momentum space, specifically focusing on the expression \(\langle p | \hat{x} | \psi(t) \rangle\) in terms of the momentum space wave function \(\langle p | \psi(t) \rangle\). The context involves concepts from quantum mechanics, particularly the relationship between position and momentum representations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the insertion of the identity operator and the implications of transforming between position and momentum bases. There is an exploration of how the Dirac delta function emerges from the integral involving exponentials. Some participants express confusion regarding the relationship between the position-momentum representation and Fourier transforms.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications on the nature of the Fourier transform and its connection to the position and momentum representations. There is an acknowledgment of misunderstandings regarding the Dirac delta function and the proper terminology to use when discussing these mathematical constructs. The discussion appears to be productive, with participants engaging in conceptual exploration.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of potential misunderstandings regarding the definitions and relationships between various mathematical expressions, particularly concerning the Fourier transform and the Dirac delta function. Participants are encouraged to clarify these concepts without reaching definitive conclusions.

jmcelve
Messages
52
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider the matrix elements of [itex]\hat{x}[/itex] in momentum space. That is, evaluate [itex]\langle p | \hat{x} | \psi(t) \rangle[/itex] in terms of the momentum space wave equation [itex]\langle p | \psi(t) \rangle[/itex].

Homework Equations



[tex]\langle x | p \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \hbar}} e^{ipx/ \hbar}[/tex]
[tex]I = \int | x \rangle \langle x | dx[/tex] [tex]I = \int | p \rangle \langle p | dp[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



So when we insert the identity, we obtain our integral: [tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx \langle p | \hat{x} | x \rangle \langle x | \psi(t) \rangle[/tex]

The thing is, I know we have to insert the identity again to obtain:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx dp' \langle p | \hat{x} | x \rangle \langle x | p' \rangle \langle p' | \psi(t) \rangle[/tex]

(Assume it's a double integral.)

This was necessary so that we could get our ket psi in terms of the momentum basis. We then act [itex]\hat{x}[/itex] on [itex]|x \rangle[/itex] and get an x in our integral. Then we insert the Fourier transforms and obtain:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx dp' x e^{ipx/ \hbar} e^{-ip'x/ \hbar} \psi(p', t) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx dp' x e^{i(p-p')x/ \hbar} \psi(p', t)[/tex]

I'm a little lost here. I see that the exponential will become a Dirac delta, which will bring p into the psi (making it the form it should be). I can also see where the differential form of x in the p basis comes out of the exponential. But I don't see how the integral with respect to x will disappear.

**EDIT** I've solved it. No need to respond.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
jmcelve said:
. Then we insert the Fourier transforms and obtain:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx dp' x e^{ipx/ \hbar} e^{-ip'x/ \hbar} \psi(p', t) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx dp' x e^{i(p-p')x/ \hbar} \psi(p', t)[/tex]

I'm a little lost here. I see that the exponential will become a Dirac delta, which will bring p into the psi (making it the form it should be). I can also see where the differential form of x in the p basis comes out of the exponential. But I don't see how the integral with respect to x will disappear.

**EDIT** I've solved it. No need to respond.

You need to be careful when you say stuff like "then we insert the Fourier transform" and "the exponential will become a Dirac delta". Inaccurate claims like these can result in los marks on your assignments.

It would be better to say something like "inserting our expression for [itex]\langle x | p \rangle[/itex], we see that the integral is in the form of a Fourier transform", and "integrating the exponential over all [itex]x[/itex], results in a Dirac delta distribution" .
 
gabbagabbahey said:
It would be better to say something like "inserting our expression for [itex]\langle x | p \rangle[/itex], we see that the integral is in the form of a Fourier transform", and "integrating the exponential over all [itex]x[/itex], results in a Dirac delta distribution" .

Thanks for the input. This is actually the revelation I had last night when I was solving this problem. I realized I was misunderstanding how the Dirac delta comes about.

Also, thanks for the clarification on the Fourier transform. Is it incorrect to say that it *is* the Fourier transform since we're missing the weighting function and the integral? It still is unclear to me what the relationship between [itex]\langle x | p \rangle[/itex] and the Fourier transform actually is (and for some reason I've been conditioned to simply refer to it *as* the Fourier transform), save the exponential.
 
jmcelve said:
Thanks for the input. This is actually the revelation I had last night when I was solving this problem. I realized I was misunderstanding how the Dirac delta comes about.

Also, thanks for the clarification on the Fourier transform. Is it incorrect to say that it *is* the Fourier transform since we're missing the weighting function and the integral? It still is unclear to me what the relationship between [itex]\langle x | p \rangle[/itex] and the Fourier transform actually is (and for some reason I've been conditioned to simply refer to it *as* the Fourier transform), save the exponential.

[itex]\langle x | p \rangle[/itex] is just a complex exponential (multiplied by some constant factor). It can be expressed as the Fourier transform of some function (a Dirac delta distribution, multiplied by some constant factor) with an appropriate definition of Fourier transform (something like [itex]\mathcal{F}\left[f(x')\right]\equiv \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ 2 \pi } } \int_{- \infty }^{ \infty } f(x')e^{-i\frac{p}{\hbar}x'}dx'[/itex] would work with [itex]f(x') = \frac{1}{\sqrt{ \hbar }} \delta(x'-x)[/itex]), but this is not what is usually meant when we talk about something being a Fourier transform.

What is usually meant is that by inserting an appropriate form of the identity operator, a state expressed in the position basis can be represented in the momentum basis by taking its Fourier transform since

[tex]\psi(p) \equiv \langle p | \psi \rangle =\int_{- \infty }^{ \infty } \langle p | x\rangle \langle x | \psi \rangle dx = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ 2 \pi \hbar } } \int_{- \infty }^{ \infty } e^{-i \frac{ px }{ \hbar }} \psi(x) dx[/tex]

which is in the form of a Fourier transform, give or take some constant factors.

When we say something is a Fourier transform, we usually mean that it is in the form of a Fourier transform integral like the above.
 
Thanks a lot for the clear response. It certainly makes sense -- once you illustrated the connection between x and p -- why it is only correct to refer to the integral expression as the transform.
 
jmcelve said:
Thanks a lot for the clear response. It certainly makes sense -- once you illustrated the connection between x and p -- why it is only correct to refer to the integral expression as the transform.

The definition of Fourier transform is an integral of that form, so that is why whenever you see an integral of that form, you can call it a Fourier transform and most physicists will know what you are talking about.

Of course, any suitably behaved function can be represented as the Fourier transform of some other function (its inverse transform), but it doesn't make much sense to refer to every suitably behaved function as a Fourier transform, since it doesn't tell you much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
714
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
442