How Does the Quantum Operator \(\hat{p}^2\) Derive from \(\hat{p}\)?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the quantum operator \(\hat{p}^2\) from \(\hat{p}\) using the given expression for \(\hat{p}\). The initial attempt at the solution leads to an incorrect result, lacking the necessary \(2/r\) factor. Participants emphasize the importance of treating \(\hat{p}\) as an operator that acts on a function, which is crucial for proper manipulation. A suggestion is made to use a test function to simplify the derivation process. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in operator algebra within quantum mechanics.
N00813
Messages
31
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given that \hat{p} = -i\hbar (\frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{r}), show that \hat{p}^2 = -\frac{\hbar^2}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial r})

Homework Equations



Above

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried \hat{p}\hat{p} = -\hbar^2((\frac{\partial}{\partial r})^2 + \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\frac{1}{r} +\frac{1}{r^2}).

This gave me -\hbar^2((\frac{\partial}{\partial r})^2 + \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} ) instead of the 2 / r factor I needed.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Nope. ##{\partial \over \partial r}{1\over r} ## gives ##{1\over r}{\partial \over \partial r} -{1\over r^2}##
Remember p is an operator: you have to imagine there is something to the right of it to operate on.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
BvU said:
Nope. ##{\partial \over \partial r}{1\over r} ## gives ##{1\over r}{\partial \over \partial r} -{1\over r^2}##
Remember p is an operator: you have to imagine there is something to the right of it to operate on.

Thanks!

I suppose it makes it easier if I had used a test function, and then taken it away.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top