B Position Operator: Mathematically Defined

Naman Jain Kota
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Well i am noobie to quantum physics so i matbe totally incorrect so please bear with me.
I had question how is position operator defined mathematically.
I was reading the momentum position commutator from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/...pring-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_04S13_Lec05.pdf (page 2 of pdf)
They have used position operator = eigenvalue (ie position itself) times wavefunction http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/...pring-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_04S13_Lec05.pdf

But i doubt that the relation will be valid only for delta wavefunction (paralell to as momentum relation is valid in case of eix. I understood it as momentum is well defined in only that case so similarly position will be defined clearly in delta function only.)
So am i correct, also point pitfalls in my understandings
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the wave-mechanics formulation (the position representation of Hilbert space) you associate with the Hilbert space vector a function ##\psi(\vec{x})##, which is square integrable, i.e.,
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} |\psi(\vec{x})|^2$$
exists. Such functions build a Hilbert space (let's leave out the mathematicle subtlties here), the space of square integrable functions. The scalar product is defined by
$$\langle \psi_1|\psi_2 \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \psi_1^*(\vec{x}) \psi_2(\vec{x}),$$
which always exists for ##\psi_1## and ##\psi_2## being square integrable.

Now you can easily check that the operators ##\hat{x}_i## and ##\hat{p}_i##, defined by
$$\hat{x}_i \psi(\vec{x})=x_i \psi(\vec{x}), \quad \hat{p}_i \psi(\vec{x})=\frac{\hbar}{\mathrm{i}} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \psi(\vec{x})$$
obey the commutator relations for position and momentum,
$$[\hat{x}_i,\hat{x}_j]=0, \quad [\hat{p}_i,\hat{p}_j]=0, \quad [\hat{x}_i,\hat{p}_j]=\mathrm{i} \hbar.$$

Now the eigenvalue problem for such operators is a bit more complicated than for operators in a finite-dimensional vector space. Take the momentum operator as an example. The eigenvalue equation reads
$$\hat{p}_j u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x})=p_j u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x}).$$
You can solve this equation, using the definition of the momentum operator easily to be
$$u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x})=N \exp \left (\frac{\mathrm{i} \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}}{\hbar} \right), \quad N=\text{const}.$$
But now you see that for any ##\vec{p} \in \mathbb{R}^3## this is not a square-integrable function, i.e., it's not in the Hilbert space! Rather it's a distribution (or generalized function). You can formaly evaluate a scalar product of two such generalized eigenfunctions to give
$$\langle u_{\vec{p}}|u_{\vec{p}'} \rangle = |N|^2 (2 \pi)^3 \hbar^3\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{p}').$$
So it's convenient to define
$$N=\frac{1}{(2 \pi \hbar)^{3/2} }.$$
A similar argument leads to the "position eigenvectors". The position eigenvector to eigenvalue ##\vec{x}_0## must be
$$u_{\vec{x}_0}(\vec{x})=\delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0).$$
So again it's a distribution. You cannot even square it!

Nevertheless you can use the generalized eigenvectors for very important calculations. E.g., if you have given a particle to be in a state represented by the (square integrable!) wave function ##\psi## and want to know the probaility distribution for momentum, you just evaluate formally
$$\tilde{\psi}(\vec{p})=\langle u_{\vec{p}}|\psi \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} u_{\vec{p}}^*(\vec{x}) \psi(\vec{x}),$$
which just is the Fourier transform. If ##\psi## is normalized to 1, you get the momentum-probability distribution via Born's rule as
$$P(\vec{p})=|\tilde{\psi}(\vec{p})|^2.$$
 
  • Like
Likes Mentz114
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top