What is the commutator of position and momentum squared in quantum mechanics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the commutator [\hat X, \hat P^2] in quantum mechanics, where \hat P is defined as -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}. One participant expresses confusion about the correct interpretation of P^2, initially deriving a complex expression before simplifying it to [\hat X, \hat P^2] = -2 \hbar^2 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x}. The conversation also touches on the Hamiltonian's definition involving the P^2 operator and the potential for exploring higher powers like P^3. Ultimately, participants agree on the correctness of the results and suggest alternative methods for calculation, emphasizing the importance of choosing the approach that feels easier for the individual.
fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,929
Reaction score
272

Homework Statement



Calculate [\hat X, \hat P^2].

Homework Equations


[\hat A, \hat B] \Psi =[\hat A \hat B - \hat B \hat A ] \Psi.

The Attempt at a Solution


I am confused by P^2.
P is worth -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}.
So I believe P^2= \hbar ^2 \left ( \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \right ) ^2.
If so, I get that [\hat X, \hat P^2]= \hbar ^2 \left [ x \left ( \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} \right ) ^2 -\Psi ^2 - 2x \Psi \frac {\partial \Psi}{\partial x} - x^2 \left ( \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} \right )^2 \right ].
However if by \hat P ^2 they mean \hbar ^2 \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial x^2}, then I get [\hat X, \hat P^2]=-2 \hbar ^2 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x}.
I think my first approach was correct, but the answer I get seems way too complicated. I would like a feedback.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It should the the latter.

<br /> \hbar ^2 \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial x^2}<br />

The Hamiltonian is often defined with the "P^2" operator.

While not all that physically meaningful, it's interesting to see what P^3 gives... (and so on)
 
Last edited:
Oh, thank you. I wasn't aware of that.
I'd like to know if I got a logical result, if it's not too much asked. :smile:
In all cases I'll redo the algebra tomorrow.
 
Oh yeah, the result is correct, and I guess see my edit that just made if you are curious.
 
Or you could change to impulse representation where the momentum operator acts on \psi (k) the same as the position operator acts on \psi (x) in coordinate representation :) That way you need not mess with derivatives.

But in the end you get the same result ;) So I guess it's the matter of which way is easier to you...
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top