Confusing step in Sakurai Chapter 1

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gitano
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusing Sakurai
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific mathematical derivation in Chapter 1 of Sakurai's text, focusing on the transition between expressions for the momentum operator in the position basis. Participants are examining the mathematical reasoning behind the derivation, particularly the use of Taylor series and the implications of infinitesimal changes.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the mathematical steps in deriving the momentum operator, particularly the transition between specific expressions involving position wavefunctions.
  • Another participant suggests that the expression can be viewed as a function f(x'), and proposes using Taylor series to approximate f(x' - Δx').
  • A subsequent reply questions whether truncating the Taylor expansion at the second term is justified, emphasizing that it should be exact due to the infinitesimal nature of Δx'.
  • Another participant argues that in physics texts, the term "infinitesimal" is often used to indicate a Taylor expansion where higher-order terms are neglected, and suggests that this interpretation is generally valid.
  • One participant clarifies that the first equality in the derivation is a change of variables, indicating that the integral's value is independent of the symbols used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the mathematical steps involved in the derivation. There are competing views on the treatment of infinitesimals and the validity of truncating the Taylor series.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in understanding the assumptions behind the use of Taylor expansions and the definition of infinitesimals in the context of the derivation.

gitano
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hi,

At one point in Chapter 1 of Sakurai he is deriving the momentum operator in the position basis - I just don't see how he makes some of the mathematical leaps (at least leaps for me) between the following expressions

[tex] \int dx' |x' + \Delta x'> < x' | \alpha > = \int dx' | x' > < x' - \Delta x' | \alpha >[/tex]
[tex]= \int dx' | x' > \left ( < x' | \alpha > - \Delta x' \frac{\partial}{\partial x'} < x' | \alpha > \right )[/tex]

I guess I kind of see that the [tex]|x' + \Delta x' >[/tex] acting on the position wavefunction of alpha is the same as translating the position wavefunction to the right by [tex]\Delta x'[/tex]. Is this the logic here or is there a more mathematical way of showing it.

Now, the transition to the last equality is even less intuitive for me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you think of <x'|α> as a function f(x'), then by Taylor series, f(x' - Δx') ≈ f(x') - Δx'(∂/dx')f(x')
 
So the fact that you are cutting off the taylor expansion at the second term is ok because you are only dealing with an infinitesimal change in [tex]\langle x' | \alpha \rangle ?[/tex] So it is still exact and not an approximation?
 
gitano said:
So the fact that you are cutting off the taylor expansion at the second term is ok because you are only dealing with an infinitesimal change in [tex]\langle x' | \alpha \rangle ?[/tex] So it is still exact and not an approximation?
In a physics book, there's really no difference between those two options. When an author uses the word "infinitesimal", it's not a reference to some definition of "numbers that are smaller than all positive real numbers but still >0". It's just a word that let's you know that the next equality you see is a Taylor expansion with all but a finite number of terms thrown away. I'm not sure that's what these authors actually mean, but it's definitely the best way to make sense of their statements. I haven't seen an example of where it's wrong to interpret them this way, and I doubt that these authors have even seen a definition of an infinitesimal.

The first equality is a change of variables. Set x''=x'+Δx'. When you're done expressing everything in terms of x'' instead of x', you just drop one of the primes, because the value of an integral doesn't depend on what symbol you use.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K