Problem during finding <x> in p space

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Shell_E
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
4 replies · 1K views
Shell_E
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Thank you advance for help!

So the problem is find <x> in P space.
The solution's logic is use formula:
upload_2016-10-18_9-35-45.png
The submit with
upload_2016-10-18_9-35-18.png
Then one will get the integral
upload_2016-10-18_9-36-33.png


by noticing that
upload_2016-10-18_9-36-48.png
, one can replace xeipx/ħ in the integral

so that
upload_2016-10-18_9-38-0.png


and then after solving the integral one can find the expectation value for x.

The part I don't understand is why
upload_2016-10-18_9-39-1.png
, firstly I am not sure where is the minus sign comes from. Next I don't think I can just change the order of eipx/ħ and Φ because the term d/dp.

Could anyone help me figure the integral out?

Thank you everybody.
Shell
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-10-18_9-33-44.png
    upload_2016-10-18_9-33-44.png
    1.7 KB · Views: 441
  • upload_2016-10-18_9-33-58.png
    upload_2016-10-18_9-33-58.png
    1.4 KB · Views: 465
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that integration by parts comes into this one.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Shell_E and DrClaude
It comes about because momentum is a Hermitian operator: http://www.colby.edu/chemistry/PChem/notes/MomentumHermitian.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Shell_E
@Jilang @DrClaude Thank you for help! I mislead by the integral sign to think it gained by doing some rearrangement inside the integral. Everything become clear if I do integral by part and use the fact that momentum operator is hermitian. Thanks a lot!
 
The tacit assumption is that any wave function decreases at infinity slower than any polynomial, thus can be safely assumed to be a Schwartz test function. The Schwartz space is invariant under the Fourier transform and provides a domain of essential self-adjointness for the momentum operator over the entire real line.
Because of this explanation, you can use partial integration in the improper definite integral and discard the so-called "surface term" (a misnomer, because we're in 1D).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71