Proving an Eigenfunction of Momentum Operators

In summary, the conversation is about a problem in quantum mechanics regarding the eigenfunctions of operators L_z, L_x^2 + L_y^2 + L_z^2, and L = L_x + L_y + L_z. The conversation includes discussions about the definition of an eigenfunction, how to calculate eigenfunctions using operators in Cartesian coordinates, and how to calculate the eigenvalue for a given wavefunction. There are also some mistakes made in the calculations, leading to incorrect results.
  • #1
Hart
169
0

Homework Statement



physforum1.jpg


Homework Equations



Stated in the question.

The Attempt at a Solution



It is a eigenfunction of L_z as it has no dependence on Z? Not sure if I can just state this, I do need to actually prove it but I can't get the calculations to work.

I managed a similar problem earlier but I just can't understand how to do it with these operators.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Isn't an eigenfunction of a transformation a function that satisfies
[tex]L_Z\psi = \lambda \psi[/tex] for some constant lambda?

and similarly for [tex]L_x^2 + L_y^2 + L_z^2[/tex]?
 
  • #3
Mark44 said:
Isn't an eigenfunction of a transformation a function that satisfies
[tex]L_Z\psi = \lambda \psi[/tex] for some constant lambda?

and similarly for [tex]L_x^2 + L_y^2 + L_z^2[/tex]?

Indeed it is.. I just forgot to include that in my post.

So using that, I have rearranged to get:

[tex] \lambda = ( L_Z . \psi) / \psi [/tex]

And then if [tex]\lambda[/tex] has no dependence on Z, then the eigenfunction will be proved. And similarly for the other variations, [tex]L_y[/tex] and [tex]L_z[/tex]

Problem is I don't know how to actually to that calculation.
 
  • #4
Well, what is [tex]\hat{L}_z[/itex] in Cartesian coordinates?
 
  • #5
All you have to do is to act on the function with the operator, and if it returns a function which is a constant times the original function, it should be an eigenfunction. The calculations should not be difficult.

As for the second question,
If that function is an eigenfunction of Lz, then it shouldn't be an eigenfunction of Lx or Ly since Lz and Lx and Ly don't commute, and therefore do not share eigenfunctions.
 
  • #6
[tex]L_{z} = -ih(x\frac{\partial}{\partial y}-y\frac{\partial}{\partial z})[/tex]

This is [tex]L_z[/tex] in cartesian coordinates? So I use this?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
You've got a little typo there near the end, but once you fix that: yes, you just apply that operator to the wavefunction.
 
  • #8
Hart said:
[tex]L_{z} = -ih(x\frac{\partial}{\partial y}-y\frac{\partial}{\partial z})[/tex]

This is [tex]L_z[/tex] in cartesian coordinates? So I use this?

Close, its actually

[tex]\hat{L}_{z} = -ih(x\frac{\partial}{\partial y}-y\frac{\partial}{\partial x})[/tex]


And yes, apply this operator to the wavefunction you are given and see what you get
 
  • #9
Here's my calculations:

[tex]\frac{\partial((x+iy)^{2})}{\partial y} = 2ix-2y[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial((x+iy)^{2})}{\partial x} = 2x+2iy[/tex]

Therefore:

[tex]x\frac{\partial((x+iy)^{2})}{\partial y} = 2ix^{2}-2xy[/tex]

[tex]y\frac{\partial((x+iy)^{2})}{\partial x} = 2xy+2iy^{2}[/tex]

Therefore:

[tex]x\frac{\partial((x+iy)^{2})}{\partial y} - y\frac{\partial((x+iy)^{2})}{\partial x} = 2ix^{2}-2xy - 2xy+2iy^{2} = 2(ix^{2}-2xy-iy^{2})[/tex]

Hence:

[tex] L_{z}\psi = -2i\hbar(ix^{2}-2xy-iy^{2})[/tex]

Then I need to divide this by [tex]\psi = (x+iy)^{2}[/tex] but that looks messy at the moment..

.. I'm guessing I must have done something wrong for this not to work out! :frown:
 
  • #10
Hart said:
Hence:

[tex] L_{z}\psi = -2i\hbar(ix^{2}-2xy-iy^{2})[/tex]

Then I need to divide this by [tex]\psi = (x+iy)^{2}[/tex] but that looks messy at the moment..

.. I'm guessing I must have done something wrong for this not to work out! :frown:

[tex]ix^2-2xy-iy^2=i(x^2+2ixy-y^2)[/tex]...what do you get when you factor the quantity in brackets?
 
  • #11
.. oh yeah :redface: how did I not spot that!

Right, so then:

[tex]L_{z}\psi = 2\hbar\psi[/tex]

Hence the multiplicative value [tex]\lambda = 2\hbar[/tex] , which has no dependence on Z, so therefore have proven that [tex]\psi = (x+iy)^{2}[/tex] is an eigenfunction.

Am I right to say then that it is also a eigenfunction of [tex] L = L_{x} + L_{y} + L_{z} [/tex], but not of [tex]L_{y}[/tex] or [tex]L_{x}[/tex] individually?
 
  • #12
Hart said:
Am I right to say then that it is also a eigenfunction of [tex] L = L_{x} + L_{y} + L_{z} [/tex], but not of [tex]L_{y}[/tex] or [tex]L_{x}[/tex] individually?

First,

[tex]\hat{\mathbf{L}}=\hat{L}_x\mathbf{i}+\hat{L}_y\mathbf{j}+\hat{L}_z\mathbf{k}[/tex]

is a vector operator.

Second, you are asked to show that the given wavefunction is an eigenfunction of [itex]\hat{L}^2[/itex], not [itex]\hat{\mathbf{L}}[/itex].
 
  • #13
I've just calculated the result:

[tex] \hat{L} = 4\hbarz(2x+iy)+2\hbar\psi[/tex]

Basically by calculating [tex]\hat{L_{x}},\hat{L_{y}}, [/tex] and [tex] \hat{L_{z}} [/tex] seperately using their cartesian forms;

[tex]\hat{L_{x}} = 2ixz-2yz[/tex]

[tex]\hat{L_{y}} = 2xz+2iyz[/tex]

[tex]\hat{L_{z}} = 2ix^{2}-4xy-2iy^{2}[/tex]

.. and then adding the three results together. Not forgetting the [tex]-i\hbar[/tex] factor of course.

Don't really know where to go with this now, it doesn't seem to simplify nicely like for [tex]\hat{L}_{z}[/tex].

As need to find [tex]\hat{L^{2}}[/tex] so I cud now square the result, see if that makes a difference, but it looks like it won't be any nicer... nope :|

* * Edit Post * *

I think if I work them out one at a time fullly first that might be better..

From calculations:

[tex]\hat{L_{x}^{2}} = \hat{L_{y}^{2}} = \hat{L_{z}^{2}} = -4 \hbar^{2} z^{2} \psi [/tex]

Hence:

[tex]\hat{L^{2}} = -12.\hbar^{2}.z^{2}.\psi [/tex]

Therefore:

[tex]\lambda = -12 \hbar^{2} z^{2}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Hart said:
I've just calculated the result:

[tex] \hat{L} = 4\hbarz(2x+iy)+2\hbar\psi[/tex]

Again, [tex]\mathbf{\hat{L}}=\hat{L}_x\mathbf{i}+\hat{L}_y\mathbf{j}+\hat{L}_z\mathbf{k}[/itex] is a vector operator. There is no such operator as [itex]\hat{L}=\hat{L}_x+\hat{L}_y+\hat{L}_z[/itex].

[tex]\hat{L_{x}} = 2ixz-2yz[/tex]

[tex]\hat{L_{y}} = 2xz+2iyz[/tex]

[tex]\hat{L_{z}} = 2ix^{2}-4xy-2iy^{2}[/tex]

You are being incredibly sloppy with your notation and your calculations here.

[tex]\hat{L_{x}}=i\hbar\left(z\frac{\partial}{\partial y}-y\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)\neq 2ixz-2yz[/tex]

It is only when you operate [itex]\hat{L}_x[/itex] on the wavefunction you are given that you get something like [itex]2ixz-2yz[/itex]. What you should say is that [itex]\hat{L}_x\psi=-2\hbar z(x+iy)[/itex]

.. and then adding the three results together. Not forgetting the [tex]-i\hbar[/tex] factor of course.

I'll say this again just to drive home the point; you can't just add these together, they are components of a vector.


* * Edit Post * *

I think if I work them out one at a time fullly first that might be better..

I agree, however...

From calculations:

[tex]\hat{L_{x}^{2}} = \hat{L_{y}^{2}} = \hat{L_{z}^{2}} = -4 \hbar^{2} z^{2} \psi [/tex]

No, you've clearly made some mistakes in your calculations (and you are again failing to distinguish [itex]L^2[/itex] from [itex]L^2\psi[/itex]...one is an abstract operator, the other is what you get after you act on the wavefunction [itex]\psi(x,y,z)[/itex] with that abstract operator...which of these are you really calculating here?).

For starters,

[tex]\hat{L}_{z}^2\psi=\hat{L}_z(\hat{L}_z\psi)=\hat{L}_z(2\hbar\psi)=2\hbar\hat{L}_z\psi=4\hbar^2\psi[/tex]

Second, [itex]\hat{L}_x^2\psi\neq\hat{L}_y^2\psi[/itex] and neither are equal to [itex]-4\hbar^2z^2\psi[/itex]

Third;

Hence:

[tex]\hat{L^{2}} = -12.\hbar^{2}.z^{2}.\psi [/tex]

Therefore:

[tex]\lambda = -12 \hbar^{2} z^{2}[/tex]

How is it that you have gotten an eigenvalue which depends on [itex]z[/itex], and hence is not a constant (as an eigenvalue should be); and have not realized that something must be wrong with your calculations?
 
  • #15
I've think realized the mistakes (hopefully all of them!) , let me try again..

.. after some revised calculations..

[tex] \hat{L_{z}} = 2\hbar[/tex]

[tex] \hat{L_{x}} = -2\hbarz(x+iy)[/tex]

[tex] \hat{L_{y}} = -2\hbarz(x+iy)[/tex]

hence:

[tex] \hat{L_{z^{2}}} = 4\hbar^{2}[/tex]

[tex] \hat{L_{x^{2}}} = 4\hbar^{2}z^{2}(x+iy)^{2} = 4\hbar^{2}z^{2}\psi[/tex]

[tex] \hat{L_{y^{2}}} = 4\hbar^{2}z^{2}(x+iy)^{2} = 4\hbar^{2}z^{2}\psi[/tex]

so:

[tex]\hat{L^{2}} = 4\hbar^{2} + 2\left(4\hbar^{2}z^{2}\right)[/tex]..
 
  • #16
Hart said:
I've think realized the mistakes (hopefully all of them!) , let me try again..

.. after some revised calculations..

[tex] \hat{L_{z}} = 2\hbar[/tex]

Again, what you are essentially claiming with this equation is that the z-component of the angular momentum operator always has the value [itex]2\hbar[/itex] times the identity matrix no matter which state it operates on. But that simply isn't true. [tex]\hat{L_z}\psi=2\hbar\psi[/tex] does not mean that [tex]\hat{L_z}=2\hbar[/tex].

[tex] \hat{L_{x}}\psi= -2\hbar z(x+iy)\psi[/tex]

[tex] \hat{L_{y}}\psi = -2\hbar z(x+iy)\psi[/tex]

Surely this fixed quote is what you really mean, right?

hence:

[tex] \hat{L_{z^{2}}} = 4\hbar^{2}[/tex]

Again, you can say [tex]\hat{L}_z^2\psi=4\hbar^2\psi[/tex], but you cannot claim [tex]\hat{L}_z^2=4\hbar^2[/tex]. An operator is not equal to one of its eigenvalues.

[tex] \hat{L_{x^{2}}} = 4\hbar^{2}z^{2}(x+iy)^{2} = 4\hbar^{2}z^{2}\psi[/tex]

[tex] \hat{L_{y^{2}}} = 4\hbar^{2}z^{2}(x+iy)^{2} = 4\hbar^{2}z^{2}\psi[/tex]

Even ignoring the missing [itex]\psi[/itex]'s on the LHS of these equations, you have some calclulation errors. Keep in mind that both [tex]\hat{L}_x\psi[/itex] and [tex]\hat{L}_y\psi[/itex] have a factor of [itex]z[/itex] in them and so [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial z}[/itex] of them is not zero...You will need to use the product rule and your results will be messier than that of [tex]L_{z}^2\psi[/itex].
 

1. What is an eigenfunction of a momentum operator?

An eigenfunction of a momentum operator is a function that, when acted upon by the momentum operator, returns a scalar multiple of itself. In other words, the momentum operator "eigenvalues" the function, resulting in a constant value times the original function.

2. How do you prove that a function is an eigenfunction of a momentum operator?

To prove that a function is an eigenfunction of a momentum operator, you must show that when the momentum operator acts on the function, it returns a scalar multiple of the original function. This can be done by using the definition of the momentum operator and simplifying the resulting equation to show that it is equal to a constant times the original function.

3. What is the significance of proving an eigenfunction of a momentum operator?

Proving an eigenfunction of a momentum operator is significant because it allows us to determine the momentum of a quantum system. By finding the eigenvalues of the momentum operator, we can determine the allowed values of momentum for a given system.

4. Can any function be an eigenfunction of a momentum operator?

No, not all functions can be eigenfunctions of a momentum operator. The function must satisfy certain mathematical conditions, such as being continuous and having a finite integral, in order to be an eigenfunction of a momentum operator.

5. How does proving an eigenfunction of a momentum operator relate to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Proving an eigenfunction of a momentum operator is related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle because the momentum operator is one of the operators used in the principle. By determining the eigenfunctions of the momentum operator, we can better understand the uncertainty in the momentum of a quantum system, as described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
21
Views
403
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
404
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
4K
Back
Top