Dirac Notation and completeness relation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Dirac notation in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the completeness relation and the manipulation of expressions involving momentum operators and eigenvalues. Participants explore the implications of these manipulations in the context of quantum mechanics, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about pulling integrals outside when applying the completeness relation, questioning whether it is valid in certain contexts.
  • Another participant clarifies that in the case of

    |p_{op}|0>, the integral cannot be pulled outside because the p in the integral is a dummy variable, distinct from the eigenvalue p.

  • There is a discussion about the transition from an expression involving the eigenvalue p to using the momentum operator, with participants debating the justification for this substitution.
  • One participant notes that the transition involves an algebraic identity rather than an operator expression, emphasizing the mathematical manipulation rather than operator application.
  • Another participant acknowledges the clarification and expresses gratitude for the insights shared.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the algebraic manipulations involved but continue to discuss the implications and nuances of applying the completeness relation and the treatment of variables in the context of quantum mechanics. Some confusion remains regarding the treatment of eigenvalues versus operators.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the treatment of dummy variables and the implications of substituting eigenvalues with operator expressions, which may depend on the specific context of the discussion.

0ddbio
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I am confused about two minor things right now.
The following illustrates both which I pulled from my QM book:

[tex]<x|p_{op}|0>=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp<x|p_{op}|p><p|0>=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp~p<x|p><p|0>[/tex]
[tex]=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp~p\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\hbar}}e^{ipx/\hbar}<p|0>=\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{d}{dx}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\hbar}}e^{ipx/\hbar}<p|0>[/tex]
[tex]=\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{d}{dx}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp<x|p><p|0>=\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{d}{dx}<x|0>[/tex]


So, the first thing I am confused about is in the middle expression on the top line.
I know they use the completeness relation [itex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp|p><p|=\hat{1}[/itex] so I guess they just stick that in the middle and I guess it's ok that they pull the integral to the outside because the other terms don't depend on p.
However, what if it was something like: [itex]<p|p_{op}|0>[/itex] when you stick in that completeness relation, you can't pull the integral to the outside... can you?

The second thing that is bothering me is going from the expression on the right (middle line) to the expression on the left (bottom line). They apparently just change [itex]p\rightarrow\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{d}{dx}[/itex] which I recognize as the momentum operator... BUT, isn't the p the eigenvalue? It first appears on the expression at the right (top line) from [itex]p_{op}|p>=p|p>[/itex] so the p is the eigenvalue... how on Earth do they justify replacing it with the operator expression?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
0ddbio said:
[...]
However, what if it was something like: [itex]<p|p_{op}|0>[/itex] when you stick in that completeness relation, you can't pull the integral to the outside... can you?[...]

Well, you can't, because [itex]\hat{p}\langle p| = p \langle p |[/itex] and the integral is wrt p.
0ddbio said:
[...] The second thing that is bothering me is going from the expression on the right (middle line) to the expression on the left (bottom line). They apparently just change [itex]p\rightarrow\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{d}{dx}[/itex] which I recognize as the momentum operator... BUT, isn't the p the eigenvalue? It first appears on the expression at the right (top line) from [itex]p_{op}|p>=p|p>[/itex] so the p is the eigenvalue... how on Earth do they justify replacing it with the operator expression?

There's no operator expression, but a bracket [itex]\langle x|p\rangle[/itex] which is picked up from the complex exponential and the numerical factor in front of it.
 
Thanks for the response.

dextercioby said:
There's no operator expression, but a bracket [itex]\langle x|p\rangle[/itex] which is picked up from the complex exponential and the numerical factor in front of it.
I am so sorry, I mentioned the wrong portion of it. I meant to say that about going from the first expression on the middle line to the second. There was no [itex]\langle x|p\rangle[/itex]

I'll just rewrite it here for your convenience. The part I was referring to was this:
[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp~p\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\hbar}}e^{ipx/\hbar}\langle p|0\rangle=\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{d}{dx}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\hbar}}e^{ipx/\hbar}\langle p|0\rangle[/tex]

and all they did was change the p into it's operator.. but isn't p there just the eigenvalue? So how are they doing that?

thanks.
 
All they did was use the algebraic fact that p exp(ipx/h) = h/i d/dx exp(ipx/h). No operators involved in that step.
 
Bill_K said:
All they did was use the algebraic fact that p exp(ipx/h) = h/i d/dx exp(ipx/h). No operators involved in that step.

ooh, yes of course!
thank you both very much.
 
0ddbio said:
However, what if it was something like: [itex]<p|p_{op}|0>[/itex] when you stick in that completeness relation, you can't pull the integral to the outside... can you?
Then the p in [itex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp|p><p|=\hat{1}[/itex] is a dummy variable, and exists only within the expression on the left hand side. In particular, it is not the p in [itex]<p|p_{op}|0>[/itex]. Therefore, you can still pull the integral outside.

However, you really should use a different dummy variable so that you don't forget which p's are which.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K