I Using the Schrodinger eqn in finding the momentum operator

Hamiltonian
Messages
296
Reaction score
193
TL;DR Summary
how can we use the Schrodinger equation while finding ##\hat p## when in fact we have already used ##\hat p##(i.e. ##\hat p ^2## in the ##\hat T## term of the ##\hat H##) in the Schrodinger equation?
I have read that the Schrodinger equation has no formal derivation we are simply applying the Hamiltonian operator on the wave function
$$\hat H = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} = \hat T + \hat V$$
here we substitute $$\hat T = \frac{\hat p^2}{2m}$$ where $$\hat p = -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}$$
but when we derive the equation for ##\hat p## we actually substitute ##\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}## and ##\frac{\partial \psi *}{\partial t}## from the Schrodinger equation.

$$< p> = m\frac{d<x>}{dt} = m\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} x\frac{\partial (\psi^*\psi)}{\partial t}$$
$$<p> = m\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} x[\psi^*\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}+\psi\frac{\partial \psi^*}{\partial t}] dx$$
here we substitute ##\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}## and ##\frac{\partial \psi *}{\partial t}## as
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = \frac{i\hbar}{2m}\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2} -\frac{i}{\hbar} V\psi$$
$$\frac{\partial \psi^*}{\partial t} = \frac{-i\hbar}{2m}\frac{\partial^2 \psi^*}{\partial x^2} +\frac{i}{\hbar} V\psi^*$$
after some simplification we end up with
$$<p> = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \psi^* (-i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x})\psi dx$$
and then finally we get $$\hat p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial x}$$
so I don't understand how we can use the Schrodinger equation while finding ##\hat p## when in fact we have already used ##\hat p##(i.e. ##\hat p ^2## in the ##\hat T## term of the ##\hat H##) in the Schrodinger equation?
this video does the derivation for the momentum operator
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What you appear to be showing is that$$m\frac{d\langle x \rangle}{dt} = \langle p \rangle$$ where ##\hat p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}##. And that justifies the original definition of ##\hat p##.
 
PeroK said:
What you appear to be showing is that$$m\frac{d\langle x \rangle}{dt} = \langle p \rangle$$ where ##\hat p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}##. And that justifies the original definition of ##\hat p##.
how exactly do we find ##\hat p## without using the Schrodinger equation? by finding ##\hat p## I mean how do we arrive at ##\hat p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}##. I thought the only way of arriving at this would be by using ##m\frac{d<x>}{dt} = <p>## but when we use this approach we need to use the schrodinger equation but the KE energy term in the Hamiltonian is already using ##\hat p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}##
 
Hamiltonian299792458 said:
how exactly do we find ##\hat p## without using the Schrodinger equation? by finding ##\hat p## I mean how do we arrive at ##\hat p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}##. I thought the only way of arriving at this would be by using ##m\frac{d<x>}{dt} = <p>## but when we use this approach we need to use the schrodinger equation but the KE energy term in the Hamiltonian is already using ##\hat p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}##
There are ways to motivate the definition of momentum. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum_operator#Origin_from_De_Broglie_plane_waves

And also on that page momentum as the generator of spatial translations (this is done in Sakurai's book).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Hamiltonian
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Back
Top