Why is an operator the quantum mechanical analogue of an observable?2019 Community Moderator Election ...
Are all CP/M-80 implementations binary compatible?
Can you stand up from being prone using Skirmisher outside of your turn?
Where did Arya get these scars?
PIC mathematical operations weird problem
Is a 5 watt UHF/VHF handheld considered QRP?
What is it called when you ride around on your front wheel?
Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)
How long after the last departure shall the airport stay open for an emergency return?
Multiple options vs single option UI
Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department
What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?
What's the difference between using dependency injection with a container and using a service locator?
A Paper Record is What I Hamper
Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?
How to get even lighting when using flash for group photos near wall?
Putting Ant-Man on house arrest
Multiple fireplaces in an apartment building?
What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?
My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer
Has a Nobel Peace laureate ever been accused of war crimes?
Does Mathematica have an implementation of the Poisson Binomial Distribution?
Raising a bilingual kid. When should we introduce the majority language?
"My boss was furious with me and I have been fired" vs. "My boss was furious with me and I was fired"
Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?
Why is an operator the quantum mechanical analogue of an observable?
2019 Community Moderator Election
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - QuestionnaireTime as a Hermitian operator in quantum mechanicsAdjoint of momentum operatorCan one define an acceleration operator in quantum mechanics?Momentum Operator in Quantum MechanicsReally how can an observable quantity be equal to an operator?Interpretation of observable of quantum state equationKinetic Energy operator in Quantum MechanicsHow is an operator applied to a wavefunction in quantum mechanics?Definitions of operators and commutativity in quantum mechanicsInfinite square well eigenstates not being compatible with the momentum operator
$begingroup$
I used to think because that, if objects are treated as waves, then using operators is the necessary thing to do in order to "retrieve" the observable from a given wavefunction.
For example, in position-space and a plane wave,
$$hat p = - ihbar frac{partial}{partial x} $$
$$psi(p) = frac{1}{2 pi hbar} e^{frac{i}{hbar} p x}$$
$$implies hat p left(frac{1}{2 pi hbar} e^{frac{i}{hbar} p x}right) = p psi(p) $$
But this only works for plane waves. Most wavefunctions I can think of are not eigenfunctions of the momentum operator, so I clearly have it wrong.
quantum-mechanics operators observables
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I used to think because that, if objects are treated as waves, then using operators is the necessary thing to do in order to "retrieve" the observable from a given wavefunction.
For example, in position-space and a plane wave,
$$hat p = - ihbar frac{partial}{partial x} $$
$$psi(p) = frac{1}{2 pi hbar} e^{frac{i}{hbar} p x}$$
$$implies hat p left(frac{1}{2 pi hbar} e^{frac{i}{hbar} p x}right) = p psi(p) $$
But this only works for plane waves. Most wavefunctions I can think of are not eigenfunctions of the momentum operator, so I clearly have it wrong.
quantum-mechanics operators observables
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Essentially because experimentally one can see that energy levels (or angular momentum or the like) are discretised and happen to be exactly spaced as eigenvalues of some matrices. This implies that more or less the theory must be a linear operator theory on a Hilbert space.
$endgroup$
– gented
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
But all functions we deal with can be written as a linear combination of plane waves.
$endgroup$
– FGSUZ
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I feel like the title and the text don't match. The title is a kind of deep question that requires us to work backward from experiments to the mathematical structure that allows us to predict the outcomes of those experiments. The text is more about understanding the structure itself rather than understanding where it comes from.
$endgroup$
– march
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I used to think because that, if objects are treated as waves, then using operators is the necessary thing to do in order to "retrieve" the observable from a given wavefunction.
For example, in position-space and a plane wave,
$$hat p = - ihbar frac{partial}{partial x} $$
$$psi(p) = frac{1}{2 pi hbar} e^{frac{i}{hbar} p x}$$
$$implies hat p left(frac{1}{2 pi hbar} e^{frac{i}{hbar} p x}right) = p psi(p) $$
But this only works for plane waves. Most wavefunctions I can think of are not eigenfunctions of the momentum operator, so I clearly have it wrong.
quantum-mechanics operators observables
$endgroup$
I used to think because that, if objects are treated as waves, then using operators is the necessary thing to do in order to "retrieve" the observable from a given wavefunction.
For example, in position-space and a plane wave,
$$hat p = - ihbar frac{partial}{partial x} $$
$$psi(p) = frac{1}{2 pi hbar} e^{frac{i}{hbar} p x}$$
$$implies hat p left(frac{1}{2 pi hbar} e^{frac{i}{hbar} p x}right) = p psi(p) $$
But this only works for plane waves. Most wavefunctions I can think of are not eigenfunctions of the momentum operator, so I clearly have it wrong.
quantum-mechanics operators observables
quantum-mechanics operators observables
edited 13 hours ago
ohneVal
911515
911515
asked 14 hours ago
sangstarsangstar
1,2591822
1,2591822
$begingroup$
Essentially because experimentally one can see that energy levels (or angular momentum or the like) are discretised and happen to be exactly spaced as eigenvalues of some matrices. This implies that more or less the theory must be a linear operator theory on a Hilbert space.
$endgroup$
– gented
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
But all functions we deal with can be written as a linear combination of plane waves.
$endgroup$
– FGSUZ
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I feel like the title and the text don't match. The title is a kind of deep question that requires us to work backward from experiments to the mathematical structure that allows us to predict the outcomes of those experiments. The text is more about understanding the structure itself rather than understanding where it comes from.
$endgroup$
– march
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Essentially because experimentally one can see that energy levels (or angular momentum or the like) are discretised and happen to be exactly spaced as eigenvalues of some matrices. This implies that more or less the theory must be a linear operator theory on a Hilbert space.
$endgroup$
– gented
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
But all functions we deal with can be written as a linear combination of plane waves.
$endgroup$
– FGSUZ
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I feel like the title and the text don't match. The title is a kind of deep question that requires us to work backward from experiments to the mathematical structure that allows us to predict the outcomes of those experiments. The text is more about understanding the structure itself rather than understanding where it comes from.
$endgroup$
– march
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Essentially because experimentally one can see that energy levels (or angular momentum or the like) are discretised and happen to be exactly spaced as eigenvalues of some matrices. This implies that more or less the theory must be a linear operator theory on a Hilbert space.
$endgroup$
– gented
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Essentially because experimentally one can see that energy levels (or angular momentum or the like) are discretised and happen to be exactly spaced as eigenvalues of some matrices. This implies that more or less the theory must be a linear operator theory on a Hilbert space.
$endgroup$
– gented
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
But all functions we deal with can be written as a linear combination of plane waves.
$endgroup$
– FGSUZ
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
But all functions we deal with can be written as a linear combination of plane waves.
$endgroup$
– FGSUZ
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I feel like the title and the text don't match. The title is a kind of deep question that requires us to work backward from experiments to the mathematical structure that allows us to predict the outcomes of those experiments. The text is more about understanding the structure itself rather than understanding where it comes from.
$endgroup$
– march
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I feel like the title and the text don't match. The title is a kind of deep question that requires us to work backward from experiments to the mathematical structure that allows us to predict the outcomes of those experiments. The text is more about understanding the structure itself rather than understanding where it comes from.
$endgroup$
– march
3 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In mathematics, in order to describe objects that: do not commute, can be summed, can be multiplied, can be rescaled, and can be "complex conjugated" (the last mostly for convenience, admittedly); one needs to use a so-called noncommutative *-algebra.
If in addition one endows such objects with a notion of "magnitude" (mathematically a norm, physically the maximal magnitude of the possible observable values), then the natural mathematical concept is that of a noncommutative C*-algebra.
Noncommutative C*-algebras can always be concretely realized as noncommuting operators on some Hilbert space (this result is called Gelfand-Naimark Theorem).
Therefore, the latter is indeed the natural mathematical way of representing non-commutative objects that have the properties of quantum observables.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Any introductory quantum mechanics text book will cover this. The basic idea is that physical quantities that could in principle be observed, such as position, momentum, angular momentum, energy, are associated with operators. We say that each such quantity is represented by its associated operator. This is a mapping between a physical thing (e.g. momentum) and a mathematical thing (the momentum operator $hat{bf p}$).
These operators connect to physical predictions in mainly two ways. First, they may enter into the Hamiltonian operator which governs evolution over time through Schrodinger's equation. Second, each operator has a set of states associated with it---the eigenstates---and their corresponding eigenvalues. But as you have noted, the system does not have to be in one of those special states. However, whatever state $psi$ the system happens to be in can always be written as a superposition of eigenstates $u_n$ of whatever (Hermitian) operator you might take an interest in:
$$
psi({bf x},t) = sum_n a_n(t) , u_n({bf x})
$$
where $a_n$ are complex coefficients. In this way you can determine how much momentum (or whatever) the system has at any given time.
It typically won't have a single well-defined momentum (for example) but a spread of values corresponding to whichever $a_n$ are nonzero. A measurement of that property would give the $n$'th eigenvalue with probability $|a_n|^2$.
I hope this answer is helpful, but I must admit that I don't think you will really be able to understand this answer until you have explored quantum mechanics a bit more fully.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's try a somewhat more example-driven answer.
Take an electron in the state $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}$ (assume $p>0$). As you said, the momentum operator $hat{p}=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}$ retrieves the momentum by a simple relation
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=ppsileft(xright)$$
So this is an electron moving to the right with momentum $p$. All good.
Now take a look at another perfectly valid state, $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$. Applying the momentum operator this time gives
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=ipfrac{1}{sqrt{pi}}sinleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$$
Yikes. This is in no way $left({rm some:constant}right)cdotpsileft(xright)$. So we can ask ourselves: what is the momentum of this state? To answer this question you need to understand that we are not reading the information correctly, or maybe even expecting something wrong. Let us rewrite our state differently
$$psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{red}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}+frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{blue}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{-ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}$$
Now look what happened. This state has in fact two components - one with momentum $color{red}{p}$ and one with momentum $color{blue}{-p}$. It is as simple as that, our state simply doesn't have a single value of momentum, but rather two. An electron in this state moves to the right and to the left at the same time.
So $hat{p}$ knows how to retrieve the momentum of its eigenstates. Want to find to momentum of a general $psi$? Just write it as a sum of eigenstates of $hat{p}$. Let's call them $psi_{p}$, and write
$$psi=sum_{p}c_{p}psi_{p}$$
Each $psi_{p}$ have definite momentum $p$, and your $psi$ has a component of fraction $left|c_{p}right|^{2}$ with momentum $p$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f475705%2fwhy-is-an-operator-the-quantum-mechanical-analogue-of-an-observable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In mathematics, in order to describe objects that: do not commute, can be summed, can be multiplied, can be rescaled, and can be "complex conjugated" (the last mostly for convenience, admittedly); one needs to use a so-called noncommutative *-algebra.
If in addition one endows such objects with a notion of "magnitude" (mathematically a norm, physically the maximal magnitude of the possible observable values), then the natural mathematical concept is that of a noncommutative C*-algebra.
Noncommutative C*-algebras can always be concretely realized as noncommuting operators on some Hilbert space (this result is called Gelfand-Naimark Theorem).
Therefore, the latter is indeed the natural mathematical way of representing non-commutative objects that have the properties of quantum observables.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In mathematics, in order to describe objects that: do not commute, can be summed, can be multiplied, can be rescaled, and can be "complex conjugated" (the last mostly for convenience, admittedly); one needs to use a so-called noncommutative *-algebra.
If in addition one endows such objects with a notion of "magnitude" (mathematically a norm, physically the maximal magnitude of the possible observable values), then the natural mathematical concept is that of a noncommutative C*-algebra.
Noncommutative C*-algebras can always be concretely realized as noncommuting operators on some Hilbert space (this result is called Gelfand-Naimark Theorem).
Therefore, the latter is indeed the natural mathematical way of representing non-commutative objects that have the properties of quantum observables.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In mathematics, in order to describe objects that: do not commute, can be summed, can be multiplied, can be rescaled, and can be "complex conjugated" (the last mostly for convenience, admittedly); one needs to use a so-called noncommutative *-algebra.
If in addition one endows such objects with a notion of "magnitude" (mathematically a norm, physically the maximal magnitude of the possible observable values), then the natural mathematical concept is that of a noncommutative C*-algebra.
Noncommutative C*-algebras can always be concretely realized as noncommuting operators on some Hilbert space (this result is called Gelfand-Naimark Theorem).
Therefore, the latter is indeed the natural mathematical way of representing non-commutative objects that have the properties of quantum observables.
$endgroup$
In mathematics, in order to describe objects that: do not commute, can be summed, can be multiplied, can be rescaled, and can be "complex conjugated" (the last mostly for convenience, admittedly); one needs to use a so-called noncommutative *-algebra.
If in addition one endows such objects with a notion of "magnitude" (mathematically a norm, physically the maximal magnitude of the possible observable values), then the natural mathematical concept is that of a noncommutative C*-algebra.
Noncommutative C*-algebras can always be concretely realized as noncommuting operators on some Hilbert space (this result is called Gelfand-Naimark Theorem).
Therefore, the latter is indeed the natural mathematical way of representing non-commutative objects that have the properties of quantum observables.
answered 12 hours ago
yuggibyuggib
9,29611332
9,29611332
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Any introductory quantum mechanics text book will cover this. The basic idea is that physical quantities that could in principle be observed, such as position, momentum, angular momentum, energy, are associated with operators. We say that each such quantity is represented by its associated operator. This is a mapping between a physical thing (e.g. momentum) and a mathematical thing (the momentum operator $hat{bf p}$).
These operators connect to physical predictions in mainly two ways. First, they may enter into the Hamiltonian operator which governs evolution over time through Schrodinger's equation. Second, each operator has a set of states associated with it---the eigenstates---and their corresponding eigenvalues. But as you have noted, the system does not have to be in one of those special states. However, whatever state $psi$ the system happens to be in can always be written as a superposition of eigenstates $u_n$ of whatever (Hermitian) operator you might take an interest in:
$$
psi({bf x},t) = sum_n a_n(t) , u_n({bf x})
$$
where $a_n$ are complex coefficients. In this way you can determine how much momentum (or whatever) the system has at any given time.
It typically won't have a single well-defined momentum (for example) but a spread of values corresponding to whichever $a_n$ are nonzero. A measurement of that property would give the $n$'th eigenvalue with probability $|a_n|^2$.
I hope this answer is helpful, but I must admit that I don't think you will really be able to understand this answer until you have explored quantum mechanics a bit more fully.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Any introductory quantum mechanics text book will cover this. The basic idea is that physical quantities that could in principle be observed, such as position, momentum, angular momentum, energy, are associated with operators. We say that each such quantity is represented by its associated operator. This is a mapping between a physical thing (e.g. momentum) and a mathematical thing (the momentum operator $hat{bf p}$).
These operators connect to physical predictions in mainly two ways. First, they may enter into the Hamiltonian operator which governs evolution over time through Schrodinger's equation. Second, each operator has a set of states associated with it---the eigenstates---and their corresponding eigenvalues. But as you have noted, the system does not have to be in one of those special states. However, whatever state $psi$ the system happens to be in can always be written as a superposition of eigenstates $u_n$ of whatever (Hermitian) operator you might take an interest in:
$$
psi({bf x},t) = sum_n a_n(t) , u_n({bf x})
$$
where $a_n$ are complex coefficients. In this way you can determine how much momentum (or whatever) the system has at any given time.
It typically won't have a single well-defined momentum (for example) but a spread of values corresponding to whichever $a_n$ are nonzero. A measurement of that property would give the $n$'th eigenvalue with probability $|a_n|^2$.
I hope this answer is helpful, but I must admit that I don't think you will really be able to understand this answer until you have explored quantum mechanics a bit more fully.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Any introductory quantum mechanics text book will cover this. The basic idea is that physical quantities that could in principle be observed, such as position, momentum, angular momentum, energy, are associated with operators. We say that each such quantity is represented by its associated operator. This is a mapping between a physical thing (e.g. momentum) and a mathematical thing (the momentum operator $hat{bf p}$).
These operators connect to physical predictions in mainly two ways. First, they may enter into the Hamiltonian operator which governs evolution over time through Schrodinger's equation. Second, each operator has a set of states associated with it---the eigenstates---and their corresponding eigenvalues. But as you have noted, the system does not have to be in one of those special states. However, whatever state $psi$ the system happens to be in can always be written as a superposition of eigenstates $u_n$ of whatever (Hermitian) operator you might take an interest in:
$$
psi({bf x},t) = sum_n a_n(t) , u_n({bf x})
$$
where $a_n$ are complex coefficients. In this way you can determine how much momentum (or whatever) the system has at any given time.
It typically won't have a single well-defined momentum (for example) but a spread of values corresponding to whichever $a_n$ are nonzero. A measurement of that property would give the $n$'th eigenvalue with probability $|a_n|^2$.
I hope this answer is helpful, but I must admit that I don't think you will really be able to understand this answer until you have explored quantum mechanics a bit more fully.
$endgroup$
Any introductory quantum mechanics text book will cover this. The basic idea is that physical quantities that could in principle be observed, such as position, momentum, angular momentum, energy, are associated with operators. We say that each such quantity is represented by its associated operator. This is a mapping between a physical thing (e.g. momentum) and a mathematical thing (the momentum operator $hat{bf p}$).
These operators connect to physical predictions in mainly two ways. First, they may enter into the Hamiltonian operator which governs evolution over time through Schrodinger's equation. Second, each operator has a set of states associated with it---the eigenstates---and their corresponding eigenvalues. But as you have noted, the system does not have to be in one of those special states. However, whatever state $psi$ the system happens to be in can always be written as a superposition of eigenstates $u_n$ of whatever (Hermitian) operator you might take an interest in:
$$
psi({bf x},t) = sum_n a_n(t) , u_n({bf x})
$$
where $a_n$ are complex coefficients. In this way you can determine how much momentum (or whatever) the system has at any given time.
It typically won't have a single well-defined momentum (for example) but a spread of values corresponding to whichever $a_n$ are nonzero. A measurement of that property would give the $n$'th eigenvalue with probability $|a_n|^2$.
I hope this answer is helpful, but I must admit that I don't think you will really be able to understand this answer until you have explored quantum mechanics a bit more fully.
answered 13 hours ago
Andrew SteaneAndrew Steane
5,7261735
5,7261735
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's try a somewhat more example-driven answer.
Take an electron in the state $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}$ (assume $p>0$). As you said, the momentum operator $hat{p}=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}$ retrieves the momentum by a simple relation
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=ppsileft(xright)$$
So this is an electron moving to the right with momentum $p$. All good.
Now take a look at another perfectly valid state, $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$. Applying the momentum operator this time gives
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=ipfrac{1}{sqrt{pi}}sinleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$$
Yikes. This is in no way $left({rm some:constant}right)cdotpsileft(xright)$. So we can ask ourselves: what is the momentum of this state? To answer this question you need to understand that we are not reading the information correctly, or maybe even expecting something wrong. Let us rewrite our state differently
$$psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{red}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}+frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{blue}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{-ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}$$
Now look what happened. This state has in fact two components - one with momentum $color{red}{p}$ and one with momentum $color{blue}{-p}$. It is as simple as that, our state simply doesn't have a single value of momentum, but rather two. An electron in this state moves to the right and to the left at the same time.
So $hat{p}$ knows how to retrieve the momentum of its eigenstates. Want to find to momentum of a general $psi$? Just write it as a sum of eigenstates of $hat{p}$. Let's call them $psi_{p}$, and write
$$psi=sum_{p}c_{p}psi_{p}$$
Each $psi_{p}$ have definite momentum $p$, and your $psi$ has a component of fraction $left|c_{p}right|^{2}$ with momentum $p$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's try a somewhat more example-driven answer.
Take an electron in the state $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}$ (assume $p>0$). As you said, the momentum operator $hat{p}=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}$ retrieves the momentum by a simple relation
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=ppsileft(xright)$$
So this is an electron moving to the right with momentum $p$. All good.
Now take a look at another perfectly valid state, $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$. Applying the momentum operator this time gives
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=ipfrac{1}{sqrt{pi}}sinleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$$
Yikes. This is in no way $left({rm some:constant}right)cdotpsileft(xright)$. So we can ask ourselves: what is the momentum of this state? To answer this question you need to understand that we are not reading the information correctly, or maybe even expecting something wrong. Let us rewrite our state differently
$$psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{red}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}+frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{blue}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{-ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}$$
Now look what happened. This state has in fact two components - one with momentum $color{red}{p}$ and one with momentum $color{blue}{-p}$. It is as simple as that, our state simply doesn't have a single value of momentum, but rather two. An electron in this state moves to the right and to the left at the same time.
So $hat{p}$ knows how to retrieve the momentum of its eigenstates. Want to find to momentum of a general $psi$? Just write it as a sum of eigenstates of $hat{p}$. Let's call them $psi_{p}$, and write
$$psi=sum_{p}c_{p}psi_{p}$$
Each $psi_{p}$ have definite momentum $p$, and your $psi$ has a component of fraction $left|c_{p}right|^{2}$ with momentum $p$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's try a somewhat more example-driven answer.
Take an electron in the state $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}$ (assume $p>0$). As you said, the momentum operator $hat{p}=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}$ retrieves the momentum by a simple relation
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=ppsileft(xright)$$
So this is an electron moving to the right with momentum $p$. All good.
Now take a look at another perfectly valid state, $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$. Applying the momentum operator this time gives
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=ipfrac{1}{sqrt{pi}}sinleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$$
Yikes. This is in no way $left({rm some:constant}right)cdotpsileft(xright)$. So we can ask ourselves: what is the momentum of this state? To answer this question you need to understand that we are not reading the information correctly, or maybe even expecting something wrong. Let us rewrite our state differently
$$psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{red}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}+frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{blue}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{-ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}$$
Now look what happened. This state has in fact two components - one with momentum $color{red}{p}$ and one with momentum $color{blue}{-p}$. It is as simple as that, our state simply doesn't have a single value of momentum, but rather two. An electron in this state moves to the right and to the left at the same time.
So $hat{p}$ knows how to retrieve the momentum of its eigenstates. Want to find to momentum of a general $psi$? Just write it as a sum of eigenstates of $hat{p}$. Let's call them $psi_{p}$, and write
$$psi=sum_{p}c_{p}psi_{p}$$
Each $psi_{p}$ have definite momentum $p$, and your $psi$ has a component of fraction $left|c_{p}right|^{2}$ with momentum $p$.
$endgroup$
Let's try a somewhat more example-driven answer.
Take an electron in the state $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}$ (assume $p>0$). As you said, the momentum operator $hat{p}=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}$ retrieves the momentum by a simple relation
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=ppsileft(xright)$$
So this is an electron moving to the right with momentum $p$. All good.
Now take a look at another perfectly valid state, $psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$. Applying the momentum operator this time gives
$$hat{p}psileft(xright)=-ihbarfrac{partial}{partial x}frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=ipfrac{1}{sqrt{pi}}sinleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)$$
Yikes. This is in no way $left({rm some:constant}right)cdotpsileft(xright)$. So we can ask ourselves: what is the momentum of this state? To answer this question you need to understand that we are not reading the information correctly, or maybe even expecting something wrong. Let us rewrite our state differently
$$psileft(xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{pi}}cosleft(frac{p}{hbar}xright)=frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{red}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}+frac{1}{sqrt{2}}color{blue}{frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}e^{-ifrac{p}{hbar}x}}$$
Now look what happened. This state has in fact two components - one with momentum $color{red}{p}$ and one with momentum $color{blue}{-p}$. It is as simple as that, our state simply doesn't have a single value of momentum, but rather two. An electron in this state moves to the right and to the left at the same time.
So $hat{p}$ knows how to retrieve the momentum of its eigenstates. Want to find to momentum of a general $psi$? Just write it as a sum of eigenstates of $hat{p}$. Let's call them $psi_{p}$, and write
$$psi=sum_{p}c_{p}psi_{p}$$
Each $psi_{p}$ have definite momentum $p$, and your $psi$ has a component of fraction $left|c_{p}right|^{2}$ with momentum $p$.
answered 7 hours ago
eranrecheseranreches
3,0721924
3,0721924
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f475705%2fwhy-is-an-operator-the-quantum-mechanical-analogue-of-an-observable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Essentially because experimentally one can see that energy levels (or angular momentum or the like) are discretised and happen to be exactly spaced as eigenvalues of some matrices. This implies that more or less the theory must be a linear operator theory on a Hilbert space.
$endgroup$
– gented
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
But all functions we deal with can be written as a linear combination of plane waves.
$endgroup$
– FGSUZ
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I feel like the title and the text don't match. The title is a kind of deep question that requires us to work backward from experiments to the mathematical structure that allows us to predict the outcomes of those experiments. The text is more about understanding the structure itself rather than understanding where it comes from.
$endgroup$
– march
3 hours ago