Confused by simple quantum problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter einai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused Quantum
einai
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Hi, I came across a problem which seems to be pretty simple, but I'm stuck :confused: .

Given a Hamiltonian:
H=\frac{\vec{p}^2}{2m}+V(\vec{x})

If |E> is a bound state of the Hamiltonian with energy eigenvalue E, show that: <E| \vec{p} |E>=0

-----------------------------------
So I've been trying something like this:

\frac{1}{2m}<E|\vec{p} \cdot \vec{p}|E> + <E|V(\vec{x})|E> = E<E|E> = E

but I have no idea how to proceed from here.

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Theres several ways to do this, one elegant way, one brute force way, one abstract mathematical way (probably not suitable if this is a first course).

I'll give you a hint on the brute force way. You are going to want to think of what the operator P is. Strictly speaking, in three dimensions it looks like

P = -i hbar * del. In one dimension its p = -i hbar d/dx

Use the Schroedinger formalism and plow away =)

The abstract method hint is to think of what P does to your state space. Hmm, it looks like a translational operator. Maybe what you are looking for is a statement of translational symmetry.
 
for a bound state, the wavefunction drops to zero at infinity, which allows you to use integration by parts to show that

\langle p\rangle=m\frac{d\langle x\rangle}{dt}

and in a stationary state (i.e. energy eigenvalue), all expectation values are time independent, so the derivative vanishes.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Haelfix and lethe :redface: .

Haelfix said:
P = -i hbar * del. In one dimension its p = -i hbar d/dx

Use the Schroedinger formalism and plow away =)

I thought about using the operator form of p, but I wasn't sure how it acts on the energy eigenstate |E>. Can I just say that after it takes the x derivative of |E>, the state becomes orthorgonal to the original |E>, ie,

<E|-i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}|E> = <E|E'> =0

because |E'> is now orthorgonal to |E>?

Hmm...I don't think I'm doing the right thing.
 
Last edited:
I think I figured it out. I used the commutation relation p = - i m hbar*[H,x].
Thanks.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA

Similar threads

Back
Top