How to prove that for any bound electronic state, < p > = 0

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ani4physics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bound Electronic State
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the average momentum < p > is zero for any bound electronic state in quantum mechanics. Participants explore mathematical approaches and theoretical concepts related to bound states, stationary states, and the implications of parity in quantum systems.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using Ehrenfest's Theorem to relate < p > to the time derivative of the position expectation value < x >, noting that for bound states, < x > is constant over time.
  • One participant argues that since the Hamiltonian commutes with the parity operator, any energy eigenstate must have definite parity, leading to the conclusion that < p > must equal zero.
  • Another participant challenges the justification of using parity without rigorously defining "bounded" states and questions the non-degeneracy of bound states.
  • Some participants propose calculating the average force from the average momentum and its time derivative, discussing the implications for stationary and non-stationary states.
  • There is a suggestion to compute the integral for the average momentum in the context of the infinite square potential to investigate whether it equals zero.
  • Concerns are raised about understanding why < p > is zero, with some participants expressing uncertainty despite being told it is zero.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the justification for the zero average momentum claim, with some agreeing on the mathematical approaches while others question the assumptions and definitions involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the rigorous proof of < p > = 0 for bound states.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of consensus on the definitions of "bounded" states and the implications of parity, as well as unresolved mathematical steps in proving < p > = 0.

ani4physics
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hey all. So, I understand that every bound electronic state will have zero average electronic momentum, because otherwise the electron will fly off the atom. But how do I show mathematically that < p > = 0 for any bound state. Any help or reference greatly appreciated. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try relating \langle p \rangle to \frac{d}{dt} \langle x \rangle (Ehrenfest's Theorem). If "bound state" means "stationary state in a time-independent potential", then use the fact that \frac{d}{dt} \langle x \rangle = 0.
 
Last edited:
Sando said:
Try relating \langle p \rangle to \frac{d}{dt} \langle x \rangle (Ehrenfest's Theorem). If "bound state" means "stationary state in a time-independent potential", then \frac{d}{dt} \langle x \rangle = 0.

If d<x>/dt = 0 then that means <p> is a constant. but how I prove that <p> = 0?
 
ani4physics said:
Hey all. So, I understand that every bound electronic state will have zero average electronic momentum, because otherwise the electron will fly off the atom. But how do I show mathematically that < p > = 0 for any bound state. Any help or reference greatly appreciated. Thanks.

The atom's hamiltonian commutes with the parity operator P. Hence any energy eigenstate |\psi&gt;} must have definite parity:

P|\psi&gt;=\pm|\psi&gt;

Now, the momentum operator changes sign under parity

PpP^\dagger=-p

So, using P^\dagger P = I, we find

&lt;\psi|p|\psi&gt;=(&lt;\psi|P^\dagger)( P p P^\dagger) (P|\psi&gt;)=-&lt;\psi|p|\psi&gt;

hence

&lt;\psi|p|\psi&gt;=0
 
Petr Mugver said:
The atom's hamiltonian commutes with the parity operator P. Hence any energy eigenstate |\psi&gt;} must have definite parity:

P|\psi&gt;=\pm|\psi&gt;

This is not properly justified. You did not use the knowledge that the state is "bounded" (whatever it means rigorously...?)

Now, the momentum operator changes sign under parity

PpP^\dagger=-p

So, using P^\dagger P = I, we find

&lt;\psi|p|\psi&gt;=(&lt;\psi|P^\dagger)( P p P^\dagger) (P|\psi&gt;)=-&lt;\psi|p|\psi&gt;

hence

&lt;\psi|p|\psi&gt;=0

For example set V=0. The Hamiltonian of a free particle commutes with the parity operator too, but still its eigenstates \psi(x)=e^{ikx} don't satisfy P|\psi\rangle = \pm|\psi\rangle.

How do you prove, that bounded states are non-degenerate? That would help. In the previous counter example the eigenstates \sin(kx) and \cos(kx) would be eigenstates of parity operator, but their linear combinations are not.
 
For a time independent potential:

\langle p \rangle = m \frac{d}{dt} \langle x \rangle

which is zero for a bound state.
 
ok someone please tell me if this is right:

d<p>/dt = <F> : this is always valid. so if I want to calculate the average force on a particle in any stationary state / non stationary state, I can just calculate the average momentum and take the time derivative.

For example, if I have an atom in presence of a time-dependent potential, I can calculate the perturbed wave function using time-dependent perturbation theory, then take the average of p over the perturbed wave function and then take its time derivative to get the average force. Is that right?
 
You can easily show that it's time independent, but showing it equal to 0 is a much stronger statement. Compute the integral in the case of the infinite square potential in 1 dimension. Is the integral = 0 ?
 
bigubau said:
You can easily show that it's time independent, but showing it equal to 0 is a much stronger statement. Compute the integral in the case of the infinite square potential in 1 dimension. Is the integral = 0 ?

yeah I can show that it's time independent. For example, consider the ground electronic state of an atom in absence of any external field. then in ground state,

<p> = <psi * Exp[i * w * t] ] p [psi * Exp [ -i * w *t]>

= <psi] p [psi>

= time independent.

but, is <p> = 0? someone told me it's = 0 but I can't understand why.

Also, someone please tell me if my previous post is right or wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
13K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
508
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K