Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Question about <x|P>

  1. Feb 9, 2005 #1

    So we have a list of axioms.
    Could someone please prove to me that these axioms dictate
    I'm interested in a proof, and if there isn't, why choosing this operator of all the operators that could keep the axioms?
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 9, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The proof is pretty long,it can be found in any book on QM (Cohen-Tannoudji,Sakurai,...),i believe i typed it once (search for it),ain't gonna do it again.It comes naturally,yes from the axioms and from the coordinate representation of the fundamental commutation relations:
    [tex] [\hat{x}_{i},\hat{p}_{j}]_{-}=i\hbar \delta_{ij} \hat{1} [/tex]

  4. Feb 9, 2005 #3
    I looked in Cohen Tanoudji, didn't find it.

    Could you give me a key word or phrase to find the proof you wrote?
  5. Feb 9, 2005 #4

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  6. Feb 9, 2005 #5
    First of all, thank you.

    Now, we're getting to what's bothering me. In this doc., they simply define <p| as some kind of twisted Fourier Transform, which is what we did in our course as well.
    Why? Why this? This is supposed to represent the old and familiar linear momentum.
  7. Feb 9, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  8. Feb 9, 2005 #7
    Thanks, I'll go over it all and come back if I have complains... :smile:
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Question about <x|P>
  1. A question about <p> (Replies: 4)

  2. Commutator of x and p (Replies: 3)

  3. Why x and p (Replies: 1)