Normalization to delta distribution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on identifying operators with a continuous spectrum of eigenvalues and corresponding eigenfunctions that satisfy the orthonormality condition. The Hamiltonian of a free particle is examined, revealing that its eigenfunctions do not yield the delta function normalization when integrated. The generalized eigenfunctions can be normalized using a specific factor, leading to a twofold degeneracy in energy eigenvalues due to parity symmetry. The conversation highlights the convenience of using momentum eigenfunctions, which also serve as generalized energy eigenstates. Overall, the normalization and classification of eigenstates are crucial for understanding the properties of quantum systems.
Jano L.
Gold Member
Messages
1,330
Reaction score
75
Do you know some example of an operator, other than momentum or position, that has (at least partially) continuous spectrum with eigenvalues s, and the corresponding eigenfunctions obey

<br /> (\Phi_s,\Phi_s&#039;) = \int \Phi_s^*(q) \, \Phi_{s&#039;} (q)~ dq = \delta(s-s&#039;)~?<br />

EDIT
For example, Hamiltonian of a free particle does not work with this, because the integral

<br /> \int \Phi_\epsilon^*(q) \, \Phi_{\epsilon&#039;} (q)~ dq <br />

with \Phi_\epsilon(q) = e^{i \sqrt{2m\epsilon} \,q/\hbar} does not equal to \delta(\epsilon - \epsilon&#039;).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why not. Let's set
\Phi_{\epsilon}(q)=N(\epsilon) \exp(\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2m \epsilon} q).
This is indeed the generalized eigenfunction of the free Hamiltonian
\hat{H}=-\frac{1}{2m} \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d} q^2}
in position-space representation.

Now we have
\langle \epsilon&#039;|\epsilon \rangle = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} q \Phi_{\epsilon&#039;}^*(q) \Phi_{\epsilon}(q) = 2 \pi |N(\epsilon)|^2 \delta \left [\sqrt{2m}(\sqrt{\epsilon}-\sqrt{\epsilon&#039;} \right]=\sqrt{8m \epsilon} \pi |N(\epsilon)|^2 \delta(\epsilon-\epsilon&#039;).
Thus setting
N(\epsilon)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sqrt{8m \epsilon} \pi}}
normalizes your functions to a \delta distribution.

Of course, this is not a complete set, because also
\Psi_{\epsilon}(q)=N(\epsilon) \exp(-\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2m \epsilon} q)
are eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian with the same eigenvalue \epsilon.

Each energy eigenvalue is thus twofold degenerate. You can classify the energy eigenstates further by parity. That also explains the degeneracy: the parity operation commutes with the Hamiltonian and thus can be simultaneously diagonalized. The energy-parity eigenstates are given by
u_{\epsilon,P}(q)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [\Phi_{\epsilon}(q) + P \Psi_{\epsilon}(q)] \quad \text{with} \quad P \in \{-1,+1\}.

The energy is degenerate, and the generalized basis built by\Phi_{\epsilon} and \Psi_{\epsilon} or u_{\epsilon,P} is pretty inconvenient to work with. Much more convenient is the basis of momentum eigenfunctions,
v_{p}(q)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp(-\mathrm{i} p q), \quad p \in \mathbb{R}
and has all nice properties of the above constructed energy-parity eigenbasis, because of course the v_{p} are also generalized energy eigenstates.
 
Thank you very much! It is much more clear now. I didn't realize one can normalize \Phi_\epsilon's by dividing by \sqrt{\epsilon}.
 
Oh this somehow got to the classical physics forum, I apologize for that.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top