I How exactly does squaring operators (e.g. <p^2> work?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zacarias Nason
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators Work
Zacarias Nason
Messages
67
Reaction score
4
I'm having to essentially piece together a framework of background knowledge to understand parts of a QM class in which I'm lacking prerequisites; one of the things that I noticed that really confused me was the square of the momentum operator <p>, and how that translated into the integrand of an expectation value; Squaring an operator as far as I'm as aware isn't as simple as just squaring its components, because, for the momentum operator defined as \langle p^2 \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^*(x)p^2\psi(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^*(x)\bigg(-\hbar^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\psi(x)\bigg)
The differential part of the operator changed, too! This isn't just squaring, what is it? \frac{d}{dx}\frac{d}{dx} \neq \frac{d^2}{dx^2} If I'm given some arbitrary operator A and told to calculate \langle A^2\rangle How do I know what the operator "squared" takes the form of?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The differential part of the operator changed, too! This isn't just squaring, what is it?

operators are supposed to operate in a space - so a A^2 must be equivalent to A(op). A(op) , a product say operating on the right...
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
I don't understand what that meant; I don't have any working knowledge of spaces, regardless of what they are.
drvrm said:
a product say operating on the right...
I also have no idea of what A(op) is supposed to indicate. A is the operator, and I'm only guessing "op" is shorthand for "operator", so unless A(op) is a really unnecessarily roundabout way of saying (A)(A) or something, I don't get it.
 
Alright then, thanks for the help(?).
 
##p^2\psi=pp\psi=p(p\psi)##, that is, you apply ##p## to ##\psi## to get a new function ##\psi_1##, then you apply ##p## to ##\psi_1##.

Likewise for any other operator.
 
  • Like
Likes Zacarias Nason
Thank you very much!
 
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