Derivation of momentum expectancy

In summary, the conversation revolved around trying to figure out why the limit of the expression \lim_{x \to +\infty} \left(x \Psi^* \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} \right) is equal to 0. The discussion included the use of the limit comparison test, the assumption that the wavefunction must go to zero faster than 1/√|x|, and the requirement that the wavefunction is normalizable. The conclusion was that the momentum operator and all its powers can be rendered essentially self-adjoint on the real line, provided that the domain of this operator is the Schwartz space.
  • #1
A_B
93
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*}
\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} &< \frac{d}{dx} (x^{-1/2}) \\
&= -\frac{1}{2} x^{-3/2}
\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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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*}
\left<v\right>=\frac{d\left<x\right>}{dt} &= \int x \frac{\partial}{\partial}\left|\Psi\right|^2 dx \\
&= \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
\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
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
Psi(x) is a test function, a Schwartz function so those limits are 0.
 
  • #6
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
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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.
 

1. What is momentum expectancy?

Momentum expectancy is a concept in physics that describes the expected change in an object's momentum over time. It is calculated by multiplying the mass of the object by its velocity and taking into account the direction of motion.

2. How is momentum expectancy related to Newton's second law of motion?

According to Newton's second law of motion, the rate of change of an object's momentum is directly proportional to the net force acting on the object. This means that for a given force, an object with a higher momentum expectancy will experience a greater change in momentum over time.

3. What factors affect the momentum expectancy of an object?

The momentum expectancy of an object is affected by its mass and velocity. The greater the mass and velocity of the object, the higher its momentum expectancy. The direction of motion also plays a role, as a change in direction can result in a change in momentum expectancy.

4. How is momentum expectancy used in real-world applications?

Momentum expectancy is used in many real-world applications, such as sports, transportation, and manufacturing. In sports, it is used to analyze the performance and potential of athletes. In transportation, it is used to calculate the necessary force and distance for a vehicle to stop. In manufacturing, it is used to design and optimize machinery for efficient movement and production.

5. Can momentum expectancy be negative?

Yes, momentum expectancy can be negative. This can occur when an object's velocity is in the opposite direction of its initial momentum. In this case, the object's momentum is decreasing over time, resulting in a negative momentum expectancy.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
570
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
872
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
941
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
983
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
30
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
981
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
976
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
0
Views
658
Replies
16
Views
542
Back
Top