A Help with proof of eq. 2.64 of Intro. to Quantum Mechanics

SherLOCKed
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
I am self studying the Book- Introduction to Quantum Mechanics , 2e. Griffith. Page 47.
While the book has given a proof for eq. 2.64 but its not very ellaborate
Integral(infinity,-infinity) [f*(a±g(x)).dx] = Integral(infinity,-infinity) [(a±f)* g(x).dx] . It would be great help if somebody could provide me a more step by step proof of the same.
Where a+ and a- are roots of Hamiltonian of harmonic oscillator problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are a+ and a- real? If so it would be justified.
 
The operator

$${d \over dx}$$ picks up a minus sign under hermitian conjugation when the hilbert space is that of functions that vanish fast enough at infinity. The reason why that's true is because:

$$\int f {d g \over dx} = 0 - \int g {df \over dx} dx$$

This implies that when you take the hermitian conjugate of the $\hat{a}_+$ operator, just replace ${d \over dx}$ by $-{d \over dx}$ which gives the $\hat{a}_-$ operator
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
SherLOCKed said:
Where a+ and a- are roots of Hamiltonian of harmonic oscillator
Be careful there: they are not! There is a constant ##\hbar\omega## difference !
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top