How is the Matrix in Momentum Representation Derived?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the matrix element in momentum representation, starting from the expression involving position states and the operator W. A key point is the integration over position states, which leads to the conclusion that the result cannot depend on the variable x, as the operator W does not depend on it. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly applying the Fourier transform and the properties of the wavefunctions involved. The final expression for the matrix element is presented as a function of the spectrum of W, showcasing the beauty of the derivation. The participants highlight the need for careful handling of integrals and the implications of delta functions in quantum mechanics.
LCSphysicist
Messages
644
Reaction score
162
Homework Statement
..
Relevant Equations
.
1616512209808.png

$$\langle p | W | p' \rangle = \int \langle p | x \rangle \langle x W | x' \rangle \langle x' p' \rangle dx dx'$$
$$\langle p | W | p' \rangle = \int \langle p | x \rangle \delta(x-x') W(x) \langle x' | p' \rangle dx dx'$$
$$\langle p | W | p' \rangle = \int \langle p | x' \rangle W(x') \langle x' | p' \rangle dx'$$
$$* \langle p | W | p' \rangle = W(x') \langle p |p' \rangle$$
$$\langle p | W | p' \rangle = \delta (p-p') W(x')$$

To get * from the previous equation, i assumed that ##\int x'\rangle \langle x' dx' = 1##. But i am not sure if i can just take it out, because i don't really know if the W(x') does affect something in this integral.

Or is this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, you can’t do that. You’re integrating over ##x’##, so it shouldn’t appear in the final result.
 
Hint: Think about what is ##\langle x|p \rangle=\langle p|x \rangle^*##. Also it's clear that your result cannot depend on ##x##, because ##\hat{W}## doesn't depend on ##x##.
 
I could try to go on: ##\langle x | p \rangle = c e^{ikx}##, with this the integral reduce to
$$c c^{*} \int W(x') e^{(ik'-ik)x'} dx'$$

Now, i need to review Fourier transform, but maybe i could say that $$ \langle x | p \rangle = c c^{*} \hat W (p)$$ ?
 
No, you first formula is right:
$$\langle x|p \rangle=u_p(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \hbar}} \exp(\mathrm{i} p x/\hbar).$$
Now start again with your initial formula in #1.
 
vanhees71 said:
No, you first formula is right:
$$\langle x|p \rangle=u_p(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \hbar}} \exp(\mathrm{i} p x/\hbar).$$
Now start again with your initial formula in #1.
I will try to go step by step.

$$\int \int \frac{dxdx'}{2 \pi \hbar} exp(i(p'x'-px)/\hbar) \delta(x-x') W(x)$$
$$ \frac{1}{2 \pi \hbar} \int exp( \frac{-2 \pi i (p-p')x'}{2 \pi \hbar}) W(x') dx' $$
$$ \frac{1}{2 \pi \hbar} \int exp( -2 \pi i f x' ) W(x') dx' = \frac{\hat W (t)}{2 \pi \hbar}$$
$$ \langle p | W | p' \rangle = \frac{\hat W (t)}{2 \pi \hbar} = \frac{K (\frac{p-p'}{2 \pi \hbar})}{2 \pi \hbar}$$

Where K is the spectrum of W
At least it is beautiful now
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top