Undergrad Why does the kinetic operator depend on a second derivative?

Click For Summary
The kinetic energy operator T in quantum mechanics is expressed as T = -(ħ/2m)∇², indicating its dependence on the second spatial derivative of a wavefunction. This relationship can be derived from the momentum operator, where P(operator) = -iħ∇, leading to T being proportional to ∇². The discussion highlights a connection between classical and quantum mechanics, although classical kinetic energy is typically expressed as T = p²/2m, which does not directly relate to a second derivative. The origin of the second derivative dependence in quantum mechanics is attributed to symmetry, a fundamental concept in modern physics. Understanding this relationship may require advanced mathematical insights, as suggested in related literature.
Steven Hanna
Messages
31
Reaction score
1
The formula T = -(ħ/2m)∇2 implies that T is proportional to the second spatial derivative of a wavefunction. What is the origin of this dependence?

In classical mechanics, T = p2/2m. Is it also the case in classical mechanics that p2/2m is proportional to a second spatial derivative? I have not been able to relate (d/dt)2 to d2/dx2 using classical mechanics.
Thanks,
Steven
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Steven Hanna said:
The formula T = -(ħ/2m)∇2 implies that T is proportional to the second spatial derivative of a wavefunction. What is the origin of this dependence?

check the expression for T -i think it should be hbar^2 may be a typo.
as we know the kinetic energy operator in coordinate representation is the above expression as differential operator.
it can be derived from the operator form of momentum

P(operator) = -ihbar. Del or in one dimension -ihbar. d/dx
as T= P^2/2m the operator form will be -hbar^2 /2m . d^2/dx^2
 
drvrm said:
check the expression for T -i think it should be hbar^2 may be a typo.
as we know the kinetic energy operator in coordinate representation is the above expression as differential operator.
it can be derived from the operator form of momentum

P(operator) = -ihbar. Del or in one dimension -ihbar. d/dx
as T= P^2/2m the operator form will be -hbar^2 /2m . d^2/dx^2

Thanks! Let me make sure I understand your explanation: squaring the p(operator) gives (-ihbar∇)^2 = -hbar^2*(∇∙∇), and ∇∙∇ = ∇^2 because the dot product of a vector with itself is equal to the magnitude of that vector squared. Therefore, T = p^2/2m = (-hbar^2/2m)∇^2. The kinetic energy of a classical wave would also be proportional to ∇^2, because the momentum of a classical wave is proportional to ∇.
 
Steven Hanna said:
Thanks! Let me make sure I understand your explanation: squaring the p(operator) gives (-ihbar∇)^2 = -hbar^2*(∇∙∇), and ∇∙∇ = ∇^2 because the dot product of a vector with itself is equal to the magnitude of that vector squared. Therefore, T = p^2/2m = (-hbar^2/2m)∇^2.
Yes.
Steven Hanna said:
The kinetic energy of a classical wave would also be proportional to ∇^2, because the momentum of a classical wave is proportional to ∇.
No, the macroscopic, nonrelativistic kinetic energy is always given by ##\frac{1}{2}mv^2##.
 
Steven Hanna said:
The formula T = -(ħ/2m)∇2 implies that T is proportional to the second spatial derivative of a wavefunction. What is the origin of this dependence?

Strange but true, and one of the deepest discoveries of modern physics, the answer is symmetry. You will find the detail in chapter 3 of Ballemtine:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/9814578584/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It involves advance math but is still worth taking a look at.

Thanks
Bill
 
drvrm said:
check the expression for T -i think it should be hbar^2 may be a typo.
as we know the kinetic energy operator in coordinate representation is the above expression as differential operator.
it can be derived from the operator form of momentum

P(operator) = -ihbar. Del or in one dimension -ihbar. d/dx
as T= P^2/2m the operator form will be -hbar^2 /2m . d^2/dx^2

You're getting close to 500 posts now. Time to learn some Latex!
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K