Derivation of the momentum-to-the-power-of-n operator

Happiness
Messages
686
Reaction score
30

Homework Statement


Screen Shot 2015-12-05 at 11.47.41 pm.png


Homework Equations


Screen Shot 2015-12-05 at 11.48.08 pm.png


The Attempt at a Solution


First substitute ##\Phi(p,t)## in terms of ##\Psi(r,t)## and similarly for ##\Phi^*(p,t)##, and substitute ##p_x^n## in terms of the differentiation operator
##< p_x^n>\,=(2\pi\hbar)^{-3}\int\int e^{ip.r'/\hbar}\Psi^*(r',t)\,dr'\int(i\hbar)^n(\frac{\partial^n}{\partial x^n}e^{-ip.r/\hbar})\Psi(r,t)\,dr\,dp##

Then integrate by parts with respect to ##x##. The integrated part vanishes since ##\Psi(r,t)## equals to 0 at infinity. We have
##=(2\pi\hbar)^{-3}\int\int e^{ip.r'/\hbar}\Psi^*(r',t)\,dr'\int(i\hbar)^{n-1}(\frac{\partial^{n-1}}{\partial x^{n-1}}e^{-ip.r/\hbar})\Big[-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Psi(r,t)\Big]\,dr\,dp##

Then I'm stuck because it seems like we need to integrate by parts with respect to ##x## again for another ##(n-1)## times in order to get
##=(2\pi\hbar)^{-3}\int\int e^{ip.r'/\hbar}\Psi^*(r',t)\,dr'\int e^{-ip.r/\hbar}\Big[(-i\hbar)^n\frac{\partial^n}{\partial x^n}\Psi(r,t)\Big]\,dr\,dp##.

But now the integrated part no longer vanishes since ##\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Psi(r,t)## and higher derivatives may not be 0 at infinity. So we can't get the above that we need.
The proof for the case of ##< p_x>## is attached below for reference.
Screen Shot 2015-12-05 at 11.51.11 pm.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh I think I got it. It seems like we have to assume the derivatives of a wave function are all 0 at infinity.
 
Happiness said:
Oh I think I got it. It seems like we have to assume the derivatives of a wave function are all 0 at infinity.
Right. And it is natural. I, for one, cannot imagine a continuous function who would go to zero at infinity but whose derivative would not. If someone has such an example, I would love to see it!
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top