Free Particle: Prove Constant in Time

renegade05
Messages
52
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A free particle moving in one dimension is in the initial state ψ(x,0). Prove that
<p> is constant in time by direct calculation (i.e., without recourse to the
commutator theorem regarding constants of the motion).

Homework Equations



<p> = m*(d<x>/dt) ?
S.E.
ψ(x,0)= 1/(√(2∏))*∫Θ(k)e^(ikx)dk

The Attempt at a Solution



I am not really sure where to start... Should I find <x> ? is that the easiest way? And how do you this for a free particle ? stuff is confusing me. Can someone give me a start here...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
renegade05 said:

Homework Statement


A free particle moving in one dimension is in the initial state ψ(x,0). Prove that
<p> is constant in time by direct calculation (i.e., without recourse to the
commutator theorem regarding constants of the motion).

Homework Equations



<p> = m*(d<x>/dt) ?
No, don't use this. Use the definition of the expectation value of an operator.

S.E.
ψ(x,0)= 1/(√(2∏))*∫Θ(k)e^(ikx)dk

The Attempt at a Solution



I am not really sure where to start... Should I find <x> ? is that the easiest way? And how do you this for a free particle ? stuff is confusing me. Can someone give me a start here...
What is the Hamiltonian for a free particle?
 
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