Translating a Wavefunction: Differentiating with Respect to ##a_x##

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter unscientific
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Translation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiation of a wavefunction with respect to a translation parameter, specifically ##a_x##, in the context of quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of this differentiation on the wavefunction and the associated translation operator, examining both mathematical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the derivation of equation 4.5, expressing confusion about the differentiation process and the resulting expressions.
  • Another participant suggests that since both kets depend on ##a##, one of the derivatives should be zero, leading to the conclusion that ##\frac{\partial |\psi>}{\partial a_x} = 0##.
  • A different viewpoint argues that the dependence of the wavefunction on ##\alpha## is limited to the translation operator, implying that the initial state does not depend on ##\alpha##.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of setting ##\vec{a} = 0##, suggesting that this means the wavefunction remains unchanged.
  • There is a question about the transformation of ##\partial a_x## to ##-\partial x## and its implications for the center of mass in the state ##|\psi>##.
  • One participant provides a physical analogy to illustrate the equivalence of moving a particle versus moving the entire coordinate system, emphasizing the relationship between the translation parameter and position.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the dependence of the wavefunction on the translation parameter and the implications of differentiating with respect to ##a_x##. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct interpretation of these relationships.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the dependence of the wavefunction on the translation parameter and the mathematical steps involved in the differentiation process. The discussion also touches on the implications of setting ##\vec{a} = 0##.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13
2z4gy9u.png


I'm not sure how they got equation 4.5

Starting from ##\psi'> = U_{(\vec{a})} |\psi>## where ##U_{(\vec{a})} = e^{\frac{-i\vec {a} \cdot \vec {p}}{\hbar}}##

Differentiating both sides with respect to ##a_x## and setting ##a = 0##:

\frac{\partial |\psi'>}{\partial a_x} = \frac{-ip_x}{\hbar} U_0 |\psi> + U_0\frac{\partial |\psi>}{\partial a_x}

Using the fact that ##U_0 = 1##,

\frac{\partial |\psi'>}{\partial a_x} = \frac{-ip_x}{\hbar} |\psi> + \frac{\partial |\psi>}{\partial a_x}

It's wildly different from what they have..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Obviously not both kets (the original one and the transformed one) depend on a, so that 1 derivative is 0, right ?
 
dextercioby said:
Obviously not both kets (the original one and the transformed one) depend on a, so that 1 derivative is 0, right ?

So that means ## \frac{\partial |\psi>}{\partial a_x} = 0 ##, which doesn't really fit
 
why would ψ depend on α?
The alpha shows you how you do the translation. So the dependence of alpha is only within the operator U and not in your initial state...
 
ChrisVer said:
why would ψ depend on α?
The alpha shows you how you do the translation. So the dependence of alpha is only within the operator U and not in your initial state...
So it means that:
\frac{\partial |\psi'>}{\partial a_x} = \frac{-ip_x}{\hbar} |\psi>

Not sure how this leads to the final result..

Unless ##|\psi'> = |\psi>## since ##\vec{a} = 0##
 
1st, reread what your image says above equation 4.5
2nd, you can also check in 4.3 what happens for a=0
finally, even without the words of a book, if the vector tha gives you how much you translate something is equal to zero, it means that you didn't translate it at all- so it still remains in the initial state.

both 3 ways are equivalent, and work XD
 
ChrisVer said:
1st, reread what your image says above equation 4.5
2nd, you can also check in 4.3 what happens for a=0
finally, even without the words of a book, if the vector tha gives you how much you translate something is equal to zero, it means that you didn't translate it at all- so it still remains in the initial state.

both 3 ways are equivalent, and work XD

Ok I got it, but how did they change the ##\partial a_x## to ##-\partial x##?

This would mean that ##\frac{\partial x}{\partial a_x} = -1## from chain rule.

Therefore ##x = -a_x##.

This would mean that the centre of mass was at the origin in state ##|\psi>##?
 
first of all, you can see the derivative over x by letting the momentum to act as an operator on your state...

But also there is a physical insight again. Suppose you have a body at point A. And you want to somehow move it right to a point B.
One way to do that, is to take the point particle and move it along (that corresponds to alpha variable).
The equivalent way, is to move the whole space so that B will come and coincide on A where your body is positioned.

So in fact, what changes you can do to alpha are equivalent to changes you'd do to your x with a minus...

for a quantitive example-
if you have a particle at x=0 and want to move it at x=1.
You can either move it from 0->1 by a vector alpha.
or move the whole axis 1 unit left, so that what was before 0, will become 1...

(it's like rotations- you can either rotate your body by an angle θ or rotate the whole axis by an angle -θ)
 
Last edited:
ChrisVer said:
first of all, you can see the derivative over x by letting the momentum to act as an operator on your state...

But also there is a physical insight again. Suppose you have a body at point A. And you want to somehow move it right to a point B.
One way to do that, is to take the point particle and move it along (that corresponds to alpha variable).
The equivalent way, is to move the whole space so that B will come and coincide on A where your body is positioned.

So in fact, what changes you can do to alpha are equivalent to changes you'd do to your x with a minus...

for a quantitive example-
if you have a particle at x=0 and want to move it at x=1.
You can either move it from 0->1 by a vector alpha.
or move the whole axis 1 unit left, so that what was before 0, will become 1...

(it's like rotations- you can either rotate your body by an angle θ or rotate the whole axis by an angle -θ)

Yeah that makes sense, thanks!

Passive vs. Active Transformation
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K