How to Show Potential Operator Acting on Eigenstates in Quantum Mechanics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gotjrgkr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of potential operators on eigenstates in quantum mechanics, specifically in the context of the Hamiltonian operator as described in Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics. The original poster is exploring the relationship between the Hamiltonian operator and its eigenstates, particularly how to express the action of a potential operator on these states.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand how to show a specific relation involving the potential operator acting on eigenstates. They express uncertainty about proving the relation and question whether it holds generally for any potential operator. Other participants provide hints and engage in clarifying the mathematical properties involved.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the properties of the potential operator and its action on states. Some hints have been offered regarding the adjoint properties of operators, but there is no explicit consensus or resolution yet. The conversation remains open-ended with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

The original poster emphasizes the need to distinguish between the position operator X and the variable x, indicating a potential source of confusion in the discussion. There is also a mention of completeness properties, which may be relevant to the problem at hand.

gotjrgkr
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Hi! I was studying Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics, but I was stuck to understand a relation concerned with operators.

Homework Statement



I've learned that in order to get the equation of motion, I should apply the Schrödinger's equation to the given Hamiltonian operator. In the book, it is said that a state function \lvert\psi(t)\rangle is represented by a product of the propagator and the initial state function \lvert\psi(0)\rangle for a time-independent Hamiltonian operator.

In p. 149 of the book, to get the propagator expressed as eigenstates of the Hamiltonian operator, a way is introduced to get those eigenfunctions. More specifically, the Hamiltonian operator given in p.149 is H=\frac{P^2}{2m} + \frac{1}{\cosh^2 X} where X is the position operator. Then the eigenstates \lvert E\rangle should satisfy H\lvert E\rangle = E \lvert E\rangle. If I put bra ##\langle x \rvert ## to both sides of the equation, then ##\langle x \rvert H \lvert E \rangle = \langle x \rvert E \lvert E\rangle##. This implies according to the book,
$$\left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{1}{\cosh^2 x}\right)\psi_E(x) = E\psi_E(x)$$ where ##\psi_E(x) = \langle x \vert E \rangle ##.

What I want to know is as follows. I think the above equation makes sense only if I show ##\langle x \rvert \frac{1}{\cosh^2 X} \lvert E\rangle = \frac{1}{\cosh^2 x} \langle x \vert E\rangle## (I've omitted other terms). However, I don't have an idea how to prove it. Even though I try to use completeness property, it's not easy. Could you give me a hint?

I think this kind of relation should hold generally. What I mean is for any potential operator V(X), if I put ##\langle x \rvert## and ##\lvert E \rangle## to both sides of it, I should get ##V(x)\langle x \vert E\rangle##. Am I right? I want to check this as well. (Be careful in distinguishing the letters X, x.)

I hope somebody else answer my question. Thank you for reading my long question.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps this trick can be of use to you:

\langle x \lvert V(X) \lvert \psi\rangle = \langle \psi\lvert V(X)\lvert x\rangle^* = V(x) \langle \psi\lvert x \rangle^* = V(x) \langle x\lvert \psi \rangle
 
Last edited:
For me, the second equality is still mystery... ;;
Could you give me more hint??
 
All it is is the definition of the adjoint of V (which is V itself because V is self-adjoint).

Shankar p.26 :smile:
 
btw I find the "math notation" to be clearer than the Dirac notation for this kind of thing:

\langle x \lvert V \lvert \psi \rangle = (x, V\psi) = (V^{\dagger} x, \psi) = (Vx, \psi)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K