What does this mathematical expression mean physically?

ieatsk8boards
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This is from from Sakurai and Napolitano HW Prob #2.6. I've done the HW problem and can fit all the pieces together with the mathematical formalism, but even afterwards I'm still scratching my head wondering what I'm looking at.

I start with the commutator [[H,x],x]. If I take <ai|[[H,x],x]|ai>, and manipulate with the formalism, I end up with

##\underset{k}{\sum}\left(E_{k}-E_{j}\right)\left|<a_{j}|x|a_{k}>\right|^{2}=\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m}##

Which is what the book is asking me to prove. What does this expression mean physically?

My best guess looking at this, is that it is related to a transition amplitude, since I see we are taking the probability that the x-operator yields a different energy state, and then multiplying that probability by the energy gap between them.

This is how I read it: "If we sum the energy gaps between the specific energy state j weighted with the probability of obtaining the energy gap upon operating with the position operator, then we end up with ##\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m}##."

Perhaps it would be easier for me to understand if there is something classical I can relate this to?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To be honest, it just looks like an alternative statement of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top