Derivation of momentum expectancy

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the expectation value of momentum in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the limit of a certain expression involving the wavefunction and its derivative as x approaches infinity. Participants are examining the conditions under which this limit approaches zero and the implications for the boundary terms in the context of normalization of the wavefunction.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the behavior of the wavefunction and its derivative at infinity, questioning the assumptions about the wavefunction's decay rate. There is discussion on the interpretation of limits and the application of concepts like the limit comparison test in this context.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the conditions under which the boundary term is considered to be zero, referencing the normalization of the wavefunction. Others are still seeking a more rigorous mathematical justification for why terms involving the product of the wavefunction and its derivative vanish at infinity.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing debate about the nature of the wavefunction, with references to it being a Schwartz function and the implications of this classification for the limit behavior as x approaches infinity. Some participants note the importance of the wavefunction's decay rate in ensuring proper normalization.

A_B
Messages
87
Reaction score
1
I'm trying to figure out why

[tex]\lim_{x \to +\infty} \left(x \Psi^* \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} \right) = 0[/tex]

This is what I've done so far:


Since [itex]\Psi[/itex] must go to zero faster than [itex]x^{-1/2}[/itex] as [itex]x \to +\infty[/itex] we have

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} &< \frac{d}{dx} (x^{-1/2}) \\<br /> &= -\frac{1}{2} x^{-3/2}<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

So

[tex] \lim_{x \to +\infty} \left(x \Psi^* \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} \right) < \lim_{x \to +\infty} \left(-\frac{1}{2} \Psi^* x^{-1/2} \right) = 0[/tex]

Since [itex]\Psi^* \to 0[/itex] as [itex]x \to \infty[/itex].


I think this proves that the limit must be smaller than zero, but here I'm stuck.


Help is much appreciated,
A_B
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of a limit. The limit as [itex]x\to\infty[/itex] of a function isn't an actual value that the function takes on. It only means that the value of the function gets closer and closer to the limiting value as [itex]x[/itex] gets larger than larger. And when you have an expression involving a limit, it's "code" for thinking about what happens to the value of the expression as the limit is approached. You don't literally evaluate the limit and use it as a number.

In a sense,
[tex]\lim_{x\to\infty}x\Psi^* \frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial x} < \lim_{x\to\infty}-\frac{1}{2}\Psi^* x^{-1/2}[/tex]
should be treated as if it read
[tex]\lim_{x\to\infty}\biggl[x\Psi^* \frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial x} < -\frac{1}{2}\Psi^* x^{-1/2}\biggr][/tex]
You can then use something akin to the limit comparison test.
 
I thought the limit comparison test was for checking convergence infinite series?


I'll write out my original question in it's context.

I'm studying from Griffiths Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. The problem arises in the derivation of the expectation value of momentum:

(All integrals are from -infinity to +infinity)
Starting from the expectation value of position
[tex] \left<x\right> = \int x\left|\Psi\right|^2 dx[/tex]

The expectation value for velocity is the time derivative of this
[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \left<v\right>=\frac{d\left<x\right>}{dt} &= \int x \frac{\partial}{\partial}\left|\Psi\right|^2 dx \\<br /> &= \frac{i\hbar}{2m}\int x \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left( \Psi^* \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial x} \Psi \right) dx<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

Partial integration then gives
[tex] =-\frac{i \hbar}{2m} \left[ \int \left( \Psi^* \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial x} \Psi \right) dx - \left.\left(x\Psi^* \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} - x\frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial x} \Psi \right)\right|_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \right][/tex]


Griffiths says the boundary term equals zero so
[tex] =-\frac{i\hbar}{2m} \int \left( \Psi^* \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial x} \Psi \right) dx[/tex]


My question is why that boundary term is zero.


A_B
 
The boundary term is zero because the assumption is that the wavefunction vanishes at x=∞. Otherwise it wouldn't be normalized correctly. I know that Griffiths mentions this in the beginning chapters.
 
Psi(x) is a test function, a Schwartz function so those limits are 0.
 
Hi,

I understand why ψ(x) vanishes as x→∞, the problem is that the boundary term is not only ψ(x), but it involves terms of the form xψ*(∂ψ/∂x). So, to me at least, it's not entirely obvious why these terms must vanish. I'm looking for a mathematical argument for why this is so.

dextercioby: Griffiths mentions that the wavefunction must go to zero faster than 1/√|x|. Which I understand follows from the requirement that the wavefunction is normalizable. Why should be a Schwartz function, which goes to zero faster than any inverse power of x?


Thanks
A_B
 
Because the momentum operator and all its powers can be rendered essentially self-adjoint on the real line, iff the domain of this operator is the Schwartz space.
 
A_B said:
I thought the limit comparison test was for checking convergence infinite series?
Yes, it is. That's why I mentioned doing something akin to the limit comparison test: you're working with a function, not a series. The limit comparison test tells you to compute the ratio of [itex]a_n/b_n[/itex] as [itex]n\to\infty[/itex], so here you compute the limit of the ratio between the two functions,
[tex]\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{x\Psi^* \frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial x}}{-\frac{1}{2}\Psi^* x^{-1/2}}[/tex]
The point I'm trying to make is that your calculations in your original post were correct, but they did not show that the limit of the former function must be strictly less than zero. The limit could be equal to zero.

Sorry about the delayed response, by the way; I was on vacation for the week and there were some problems with internet access.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K