Physical meaning of ##\psi_1(x)\hat{A}\psi_2(x)##

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter amjad-sh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physical meaning of the expression ##\psi_1(x)\hat{A}\psi_2(x)##, where ##\hat{A}## is an observable and ##\psi_1(x)## and ##\psi_2(x)## are arbitrary wavefunctions. Participants explore various interpretations, including its potential representation in quantum mechanics and its relation to matrix elements and transition probabilities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the physical meaning of the expression ##\psi_1(x)\hat{A}\psi_2(x)##.
  • Others suggest that it may be more meaningful when considered as part of an integral or in bra-ket notation, specifically ##<\psi_1|\hat{A}|\psi_2>##.
  • A participant argues that the expression does not represent an expected value unless ##\psi_1 = \psi_2##.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of complex conjugation in the expression, asserting that it should be written as ##\int \psi_1^*(x) \hat{A} \psi_2(x) \, dx##.
  • One participant introduces the context of a perturbing Hamiltonian and references Fermi's Golden Rule, suggesting a connection to transition probabilities.
  • A later reply provides a detailed context involving a Hamiltonian with Rashba spin-orbit coupling, speculating on the physical implications of quantum overlaps and induced currents.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the physical meaning of the expression, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the importance of notation and context, while others remain uncertain about its interpretation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity in notation and the potential implications of the expression in different contexts, such as transition probabilities and induced currents, without resolving the underlying uncertainties.

amjad-sh
Messages
240
Reaction score
13
What is the physical meaning of ##\psi_1(x)\hat{A}\psi_2(x)##, where ##\hat{A}## is an observable and, ##\psi_1(x)## and ##\psi_2(x)## are arbitrary wavefunctions?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: olgerm
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see any physical meaning in this expression.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and amjad-sh
Inside an integral?
 
What should it mean there?
 
It wouldn't lead necessarily to a "physical meaning," but I was hoping for more context. Looks more like a set-up for the matrix representation of ##\hat{A}##.
 
I think bra-ket notation is missing.
 
I think he means:
physical meaning of ##<\psi_1(x)|\hat{A}|\psi_2(x)>##, where ##\hat{A}## is an observable and, ##\psi_1(x)## and ##\psi_2(x)## are arbitrary wavefunctions.
Is it expected value of quantity A?
 
olgerm said:
I think he means:
physical meaning of ##<\psi_1(x)|\hat{A}|\psi_2(x)>##, where ##\hat{A}## is an observable and, ##\psi_1(x)## and ##\psi_2(x)## are arbitrary wavefunctions.
Sorry for being pedantic, but this mix of notation doesn't make sense. It should be
$$
\langle \psi_1 | \hat{A} | \psi_2 \rangle
$$
or (which is why I asked about an integral)
$$
\int \psi_1^*(x) \hat{A} \psi_2(x) \, dx
$$

olgerm said:
Is it expected value of quantity A?
No. That would only be the case for ##\psi_1 = \psi_2##.
 
Last edited:
If ##\hat A## is a perturbing Hamiltonian, a search in "Fermi's Golden Rule" may present useful information related to the expressions mentioned by DrClaude in #8. They may be related to transition probabilities.
 
  • #10
Well, if you want to calculate
$$\langle \psi_1|\hat{A}|\psi_2 \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x_1 \int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x_1 \psi_1^*(x_1) A(x_1,x_2) \psi_2(x_2).$$
Now defining the operator in position representation as
$$\hat{A} \psi(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x' \langle x|\hat{A}|x' \rangle \psi(x')$$
DrClaude said:
Sorry for being pedantic, but this mix of notation doesn't make sense. It should be
$$
\langle \psi_1 | \hat{A} | \psi_2 \rangle
$$
or (which is why I asked about an integral)
$$
\int \psi_1(x) \hat{A} \psi_2(x) \, dx
$$No. That would only be the case for ##\psi_1 = \psi_2##.
NO! It's
$$
\int \psi_1^*(x) \hat{A} \psi_2(x) \, dx
$$
Then it's a matrix element of ##\hat{A}##. The complex conjugation is of utmost importance!
 
  • #11
vanhees71 said:
NO! It's
$$
\int \psi_1^*(x) \hat{A} \psi_2(x) \, dx
$$
Then it's a matrix element of ##\hat{A}##. The complex conjugation is of utmost importance!
Of course. I'll fix my typo.
 
  • #12
DrClaude said:
It wouldn't lead necessarily to a "physical meaning," but I was hoping for more context. Looks more like a set-up for the matrix representation of ##\hat{A}##.
I will put more context to make my point more clear.
$$\hat{H}=\dfrac{p^2}{2m}-\dfrac{\partial_z^2}{2m}+V(z) +\gamma V'(z)(\hat{z} \times \vec{p})$$
The eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian ##\hat{H}## have the following form:
##\vec{\varphi}_{k\sigma}(z)=\begin{cases}
(e^{ikz}+(r_0+r_x\sigma_x+r_y\sigma_y)e^{-ikz})\xi_{\sigma} \quad\text{if} \quad z<0\\
(t_0+t_x\sigma_x+t_y\sigma_y)e^{ik'z}\xi_{\sigma} \quad \text{if} \quad z>0
\end{cases}##

Where ##V(z)=V\theta(z)##,##\xi_{\pm}## are the eigenfunctions of ##\sigma_x## and the terms ##(r_x\sigma_x+r_y\sigma_y)e^{-ikz}\xi_{\sigma}## and ##(t_x\sigma_x+t_y\sigma_y)e^{ik'z}\xi_{\sigma}## are the terms added due to the presence of Rashba spin-orbit coupling term at z=0.
The presence of the Rashba spin-orbit coupling term at the interface induces lateral spin and charge currents flowing along the x-y plane.
The interference between the spin-orbit coupling part of the wavefunction such as ##(r_x\sigma_x +r_y\sigma_y)\xi_{\sigma}## with the part not related to the spin-orbit coupling term is the fundamental reason behind the induction of the lateral charge and spin currents.
I speculated that the quantum overlap between ##e^{ikz}\xi_{\sigma}## and ##r_x\sigma_x\xi_{\sigma}## or ##r_y\sigma_y\xi_y## induces a charge current flowing along the x or y directions, respectively, as ##r_x \propto p_x## and ##r_y \propto p_y##.
In the case of spin currents, I speculated that instead of quantum overlapping the non-zero value, for example, of the integral below:
$$\int (e^{-ikz}\xi_{\sigma}^{\dagger})\sigma_{x/y/z}(r_{x/y}\sigma_{x/y}\xi_{\sigma})dz$$
induces a spin current flowing along the x/y direction and spin-polarized along the x/y/z-axis.
I want to know what physical meaning may this integral give.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K