I When is Â(r) Ψ(r) = ⟨r | Â | Ψ⟩?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the equation Â(r) Ψ(r) = ⟨r |  | Ψ⟩ and its validity. Participants analyze the right-hand side of the equation, exploring the implications of assuming the operator's action leads to a simplified form. They highlight the need for clarity in notation, particularly regarding the operator  acting on function spaces versus state spaces. The conversation emphasizes the formalism of quantum mechanics, particularly the relationship between position eigenstates and state functions. Ultimately, the question remains whether the equation holds true universally in all contexts.
LightPhoton
Messages
42
Reaction score
3
Wikipedia says that the equation in the title is defined to be true.


1748203018543.webp



But is it true always?

Working with the right-hand side,

$$\langle \mathbf r\vert\hat A\vert\Psi\rangle=\int\langle \mathbf r\vert\hat A\vert\mathbf r'\rangle\langle\mathbf r'\vert\Psi\rangle\ d\mathbf r'$$

If we assume that ##\langle \mathbf r\vert\hat A\vert\mathbf r'\rangle=\hat A(\mathbf r)\delta(\mathbf{r-r'})##, then above expression collapses to ## \hat A(\mathbf r)\Psi(\mathbf r)##. But how to show this in general?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Conventionally
\psi(r)=<r|\psi>
So
\phi(r)=<r|\phi>=<r|\hat{A}|\psi>
where
\hat{A}|\psi>=|\phi>
So I prefer the notation for the definition
[\hat{A}\psi](r)=\hat{A}\psi(r) \equiv <r|\hat{A}|\psi>
with no (r) for A. I have no idea what ##\hat{A}(r)## could mean.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Albertus Magnus, LightPhoton, Demystifier and 1 other person
LightPhoton said:
Wikipedia says that the equation in the title is defined to be true.


View attachment 361447


But is it true always?
It's worth noting the formalism here. We start with ##r## as the coordinate(s) of a point in space. I.e. ##r \in \mathbb R^3##. And we have ##|r\rangle## as the position eigenstate (or eigenket) associated with that point. We also have some state ##|\Psi \rangle##.

Now, we can define a complex-valued function (on ##\mathbb R^3##) by:
$$\Psi(r) \equiv \langle r|\Psi \rangle$$Where ##\langle r|## is the bra associated with the eigenket ##|r\rangle##.

Next, we have some operator, ##\hat A##, that acts on the Hilbert space of states/kets. From this we can define an operator, ##\hat A(r)## in this notation, on our function space of complex-valued functions, using:
$$[\hat A(r)\Psi](r) \equiv \langle r|\hat A|\Psi \rangle$$Note that this notation is slightly odd and it would be more usual to write something like ##\hat A'## or ##\hat A_f##, to indicate that this operator is technically not the same as ##\hat A##, but acts on the function space - rather than the space of states/kets. I.e. I would tend to write:
$$\hat A' \Psi(r) \equiv [\hat A'\Psi](r) \equiv \langle r|\hat A|\Psi \rangle$$In any case, note that this defines the action of the operator ##\hat A'## on any function ##\Psi##.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis and LightPhoton
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...