Fourier Transfrom and expectation value of momemtum operator

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the expectation value of the momentum operator in quantum mechanics, specifically using the Fourier transform of the wavefunction. The original poster attempts to show that the expectation value can be expressed in terms of the Fourier transform, but encounters difficulties in the calculations and transformations involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss substituting the momentum operator into the expectation value formula and transforming the wavefunction. Questions arise regarding the application of the derivative operator and the handling of Fourier transforms with differing indices.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide guidance on the need for careful handling of Fourier transformations and suggest using identities related to Dirac delta functions to aid in the calculations. There is an acknowledgment of the original poster's confusion, but no consensus has been reached on the next steps.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential mistakes in the application of the Fourier transform and the integration process, as well as the need to ensure consistent indices during transformations. The original poster is working within the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information they can use.

black_hole
Messages
71
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Using <\hat{p}n> = ∫dxψ*(x)(\hat{p})nψ(x) and \hat{p} = -ihbar∂x and the definition of the Fourier transform

show that <\hat{p}> = ∫dk|\tilde{ψ}(k)|2hbar*k

2. The attempt at a solution

Let n = 1 and substitute the expression for the momentum operator. Transform the wavefunction and its conjugate. Take out all constants.

\hat{p} = -ihbar/2pi∫dx∫dkeikx\tilde{ψ}*(k)∂xdkeikx\tilde{ψ}

Here I'm stuck. I tired applying the ∂x operator onto the eikx next to it. That cancels the negative sign, the i, and brings down a k. I thought I could change the the transform of the wavefunction and its conjugate into its norm squared and then I'd be left with ∫dxe2ikx but that integral does not give me 2pi.

have a made a mistake?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
black_hole said:
Here I'm stuck. I tired applying the ∂x operator onto the eikx next to it. That cancels the negative sign, the i, and brings down a k. I thought I could change the the transform of the wavefunction and its conjugate into its norm squared and then I'd be left with ∫dxe2ikx but that integral does not give me 2pi.

have a made a mistake?

You need to be more careful. The two Fourier transformations you do don't have the same index: you integrate over two different k's.
 
Um, ok. You're probably right. But I'm not sure I see what to do ...
 
You will need an identity concerning Dirac delta functions: \delta(k+k&#039;) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int e^{ix(k+k&#039;)} dx
 
black_hole said:
Um, ok. You're probably right. But I'm not sure I see what to do ...
What clamtrox is saying is that you should start off with
$$\langle \hat{p} \rangle = -\frac{i\hbar}{2\pi}\int dx \left[\int dk\,\tilde{\psi}(k)e^{ikx}\right]^* \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left[\int dk'\,\tilde{\psi}(k')e^{ik'x}\right].$$ Do what you tried the first time, but this time you'll get something that looks like the identity clamtrox provided above, which will allow you to perform one of the integrals, leaving you with the result you want.
 
Ok Thanks guys! That makes more sense
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K