I Problem during finding <x> in p space

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Shell_E
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
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: 406
  • upload_2016-10-18_9-33-58.png
    upload_2016-10-18_9-33-58.png
    1.4 KB · Views: 429
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that integration by parts comes into this one.
 
  • Like
Likes Shell_E and DrClaude
It comes about because momentum is a Hermitian operator: http://www.colby.edu/chemistry/PChem/notes/MomentumHermitian.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes 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 vanhees71
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top