Free particle in quantum mechanics, Dirac formalism

MManuel Abad
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
The problem is very easy, maybe just something about eigenvectors that I'm missing. Go to the first two pages of the 5th chapter of ''Principles of Quantum Mechanics'', by Shankar, 2nd edition.

Homework Statement



Shankar wants to find the solution for a free particle in Quantum Mechanics. I've got a problem with what he calls ''trial solution'', and the change from an eigenvector to another.

Hamilton operator: H=\frac{P^{2}}{2m} for a free particle

P, the momentum operator, m the particle's mass

State vector (ket): \left|\psi\right\rangle

Homework Equations



The Schroedinger equation:

i\hbar\\left|\dot{\psi}\right\rangle = H\left|\psi\right\rangle = \frac{P^{2}}{2m}\left|\psi\right\rangle

The time independent Schrodinger equation:

H\left|E\right\rangle = \frac{P^{2}}{2m}\left|E\right\rangle = E\left|E\right\rangle

The Attempt at a Solution



Shankar then says that ''any eigenstate of P is also an eigenstate of P^{2}'', which is very clear. Then he says: ''feeding the trial solution \left|p\right\rangle '' into the time independent Schrodinger eq., he gets:

\frac{P^{2}}{2m}\left|p\right\rangle = E\left|p\right\rangle

But I don't get it. Why did he change from the \left|E\right\rangle eigenbasis to the \left|p\right\rangle eigenbasis, and still maintained the eigenvalue E? Is there atheorem of eigenbasis I'm missing? I mean, \left|p\right\rangle is an eigenvector of P, by definition, and then, of P^{2}. Then, from the time independent Schr. eq. we see that \left|E\right\rangle is an eigenvector of P^{2} too. But that doesn't mean it's the same eigenbasis, does it? Or what does ''trial'' mean in this context (forgive me, my mother language is spanish).

After that ''change of basis'' from \left|E\right\rangle to \left|p\right\rangle, everything is fine. So please, explain it to me.

Please, forgive me, I know this is a very stupid question, but I just don't get it.

Thankyou very much for your patience.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The ket \vert p \rangle is an eigenstate of both the momentum operator \hat{p} and the Hamiltonian \hat{H}. If you apply Hamiltonian to it, you will get the corresponding eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian, namely E.

The \vert E \rangle and \vert p \rangle bases aren't the same. While a state \vert p \rangle is an eigenstate of \hat{H}, a state \vert E \rangle isn't necessarily an eigenstate of \hat{p}. For example, you can show that a state with the wave function \psi(x) = e^{ikx} + e^{-ikx} is an eigenstate of \hat{H} with eigenvalue E=\hbar^2k^2/2m but it's not an eigenstate of \hat{p}.
 
Last edited:
Dear Lord, how could I be so blind??! That's crystal clear! Thank you so much, vela, for taking the time for answering such a silly question! THANK YOU!
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top