How is this equation for <x|P|x'> derived?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter baouba
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the equation for the momentum operator in quantum mechanics, specifically the expression . Participants seek clarification on the meaning of this expression, the role of the identity operator, and the steps involved in the derivation process. The scope includes theoretical aspects of quantum mechanics and mathematical reasoning related to operator representations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that represents the momentum operator acting on the state vector, projected onto the position basis, and question the necessity of the factor of iћ due to the commutation relation [x,p] = iћ.
  • Others argue that the integral of |x'>
  • A participant expresses confusion about the derivation steps and the significance of the identity operator in determining .
  • Some participants clarify that the identity operator is inserted to facilitate the understanding of the momentum operator's representation, rather than as a necessity for the derivation itself.
  • There is a discussion about the transition from one line of the derivation to another, specifically regarding the treatment of operators and scalars in the context of the Taylor expansion.
  • One participant points out a potential error in notation regarding the order of the inner products and discusses the implications of the delta function in this context.
  • A later reply provides a mathematical derivation involving the momentum operator and its representation in position space, but it does not resolve the earlier questions about the derivation process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of understanding regarding the derivation steps and the role of the identity operator. While some agree on the necessity of the identity operator for clarity, others question its purpose. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the derivation process and its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the derivation involves subtleties in operator treatment and the use of the delta function, which may depend on specific assumptions about the operators and their domains. There are also unresolved mathematical steps that contribute to the confusion expressed by some participants.

baouba
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Image: http://imgur.com/pynKr8q

How is the boxed equation arrived at when looking at the step before?

I think I need clarification on a few key ideas:

in words, does < x | p | ψ > mean, "The momentum operator acting on the state vector, then projected onto the position basis"? If so, wouldn't that mean there would always be a factor of iћ since [x,p] = iћ?

Furthermore, is the reason the integral of |x'><x'| there just so you get <x'|ψ> and project ψ to the x' basis. I know it equals and identity matrix but can you do this?

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
baouba said:
How is the boxed equation arrived at when looking at the step before?
I don't think you can get it from the equation above, but rather from the equation below. For eq. (75) to hold, which it should given the definition of ##\hat{P}## as a differential operator and ##\psi(x) = \langle x | \psi \rangle##, then you need eq. (74) to be true.

baouba said:
in words, does < x | p | ψ > mean, "The momentum operator acting on the state vector, then projected onto the position basis"? If so, wouldn't that mean there would always be a factor of iћ since [x,p] = iћ?
Yes, and the factor of iћ is there.

baouba said:
Furthermore, is the reason the integral of |x'><x'| there just so you get <x'|ψ> and project ψ to the x' basis. I know it equals and identity matrix but can you do this?
The author is inserting the identity operator between ##\hat{P}_x## and ##\psi##, which you always do and the result should be unchanged. This is how the value of ##\langle x | \hat{P}_x | x' \rangle## can be figured out.
 
Thanks for the reply!

DrClaude said:
This is how the value of x|P̂ x|x⟩⟨x|P^x|x′⟩\langle x | \hat{P}_x | x' \rangle can be figured out.


but the whole reason we need to figure out < x | Px | x' > in the first place is because the identity operator is inserted. What's the point?

Also how to do you do this derivation step by step? I'm very confused I think my prof. is skipping steps
: http://imgur.com/tl07k5g
 
baouba said:
but the whole reason we need to figure out < x | Px | x' > in the first place is because the identity operator is inserted. What's the point?
It seems like the sentence above is more logical if it were written as
"but the whole reason we can figure out < x | Px | x' > in the first place is because the identity operator is inserted".
The reason why the author needs to figure out ##\langle x|\hat{P}_x|x'\rangle## is because he wants to make the reader know how this quantity looks like, and also possibly because its equivalent form being sought will be needed in the other derivations to come, it is not because the identity operator is inserted.

baouba said:
Also how to do you do this derivation step by step? I'm very confused I think my prof. is skipping steps
: http://imgur.com/tl07k5g
To me, the presented steps look sufficiently complete. Which particular part of this derivation you can't understand?
 
blue_leaf77 said:
It seems like the sentence above is more logical if it were written as
"but the whole reason we can figure out < x | Px | x' > in the first place is because the identity operator is inserted".
The reason why the author needs to figure out ##\langle x|\hat{P}_x|x'\rangle## is because he wants to make the reader know how this quantity looks like, and also possibly because its equivalent form being sought will be needed in the other derivations to come, it is not because the identity operator is inserted.To me, the presented steps look sufficiently complete. Which particular part of this derivation you can't understand?
Thanks for replying. The 2nd line to the 3rd line is where I get lost.
 
The second line reads as
$$
\langle x | \left[ \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x'^n}{n!} \frac{\partial^n V(X)}{\partial X^n} \right] |x'\rangle
$$
The factor in the big square bracket is now just a number/scalar, it's not an operator anymore like it was in the first line. Therefore, you can bring ##|x'\rangle## out to the left till it meets ##\langle x|##, leaving you with the expression
$$
\langle x | x'\rangle \left[ \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x'^n}{n!} \frac{\partial^n V(X)}{\partial X^n} \right]
$$
Note that the factor in the square bracket is the Taylor expansion of a scalar ##V(x')##. So you obtain the third line.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
The second line reads as
$$
\langle x | \left[ \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x'^n}{n!} \frac{\partial^n V(X)}{\partial X^n} \right] |x'\rangle
$$
The factor in the big square bracket is now just a number/scalar, it's not an operator anymore like it was in the first line. Therefore, you can bring ##|x'\rangle## out to the left till it meets ##\langle x|##, leaving you with the expression
$$
\langle x | x'\rangle \left[ \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x'^n}{n!} \frac{\partial^n V(X)}{\partial X^n} \right]
$$
Note that the factor in the square bracket is the Taylor expansion of a scalar ##V(x')##. So you obtain the third line.

but the 3rd line has <x'|x> not <x|x'>. Am I missing something?
 
baouba said:
but the 3rd line has <x'|x> not <x|x'>. Am I missing something?
Ah you are right, I must have missed that part. Fortunately, that's not a big trouble because ##\langle x|x' \rangle = \delta(x-x') = \delta(x'-x) = \langle x'|x \rangle##.
 
I've not followed the entire discussion, but perhaps, the following helps (I'm setting ##\hbar=1## for simplicity)
$$\langle x|\hat{p}|x' \rangle=\int \frac{\mathrm{d} p}{(2 \pi)} \langle{x}|\hat{p}|p \rangle \langle p|x' \rangle=\int \frac{\mathrm{d} p}{(2 \pi)} \exp[\mathrm{i} p (x-x')] p = -\mathrm{i} \partial_x \int \frac{\mathrm{d} p}{(2 \pi)} \exp[\mathrm{i} p(x-x')]=-\mathrm{i} \partial_x \delta(x-x')=+\mathrm{i} \partial_{x'} \delta(x-x').$$
Now you can use it to determine the momentum operator in position representation on an arbitrary Hilbert-space vector (in the domain of the momentum operator!):
$$\hat{p} \psi(x):=\langle x|\hat{p} \psi \rangle=\int \mathrm{d} x' \langle x|\hat{p}|x' \rangle \psi(x')=\int \mathrm{d} x' \psi(x') \mathrm{i} \partial_{x'} \delta(x-x') = \int \mathrm{d} x' (-\mathrm{i} \partial_{x'}) \psi(x') \cdot \delta(x-x')=-\mathrm{i} \partial_x \psi(x).$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K