Matrix elements of the free particle Hamiltonian











up vote
12
down vote

favorite
5












The Hamiltonian of a free particle is $hat H = frac{hat p^2}{2m}$, in position representation
$$ hat H = -frac{hbar^2}{2m} Delta ;. $$
Now consider two wave functions $psi_1(x)$ and $psi_2(x)$ which are smooth enough (say $C^infty$), have compact support, and their support doesn't intersect. Obviously, $langle psi_1 | psi_2 rangle = 0$.



Is the matrix element $ langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle $ zero?




  • On the one hand, the answer should be "obviously yes", since
    $$ langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle = -frac{hbar^2}{2m} int overline{psi_1(x)}, psi^{primeprime}_2(x) ,dx = 0 ;. $$


  • On the other hand, it is common knowledge that wave functions spread, and after $dt$ of time their support will be infinite.
    Therefore I would expect*
    $$ langle psi_1 | psi_2(dt) rangle = langle psi_1 | psi_2 rangle -frac i hbar langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle, dt + mathcal O(dt^2) neq 0 . $$





* To keep it simple, I am only evolving one of the wave functions in time. Otherwise the first order in $dt$ would be zero, but I could ask the same question about the matrix element of $hat H^2$ appearing at the second order.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I don't know if this is relevant, but I have a question. Is it possible for two $C^infty$ functions to have disjoint support?
    – garyp
    2 days ago












  • Just for clarity, are $psi_{1}(x)$ and $psi_{2}(x)$ arbitrary wavefunctions or are they specifically energy eigenfunctions? I assume you mean that they are arbitrary solutions to the free-particle Schrodinger equation
    – N. Steinle
    2 days ago










  • @garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
    – Bruce Greetham
    2 days ago












  • @garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago















up vote
12
down vote

favorite
5












The Hamiltonian of a free particle is $hat H = frac{hat p^2}{2m}$, in position representation
$$ hat H = -frac{hbar^2}{2m} Delta ;. $$
Now consider two wave functions $psi_1(x)$ and $psi_2(x)$ which are smooth enough (say $C^infty$), have compact support, and their support doesn't intersect. Obviously, $langle psi_1 | psi_2 rangle = 0$.



Is the matrix element $ langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle $ zero?




  • On the one hand, the answer should be "obviously yes", since
    $$ langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle = -frac{hbar^2}{2m} int overline{psi_1(x)}, psi^{primeprime}_2(x) ,dx = 0 ;. $$


  • On the other hand, it is common knowledge that wave functions spread, and after $dt$ of time their support will be infinite.
    Therefore I would expect*
    $$ langle psi_1 | psi_2(dt) rangle = langle psi_1 | psi_2 rangle -frac i hbar langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle, dt + mathcal O(dt^2) neq 0 . $$





* To keep it simple, I am only evolving one of the wave functions in time. Otherwise the first order in $dt$ would be zero, but I could ask the same question about the matrix element of $hat H^2$ appearing at the second order.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I don't know if this is relevant, but I have a question. Is it possible for two $C^infty$ functions to have disjoint support?
    – garyp
    2 days ago












  • Just for clarity, are $psi_{1}(x)$ and $psi_{2}(x)$ arbitrary wavefunctions or are they specifically energy eigenfunctions? I assume you mean that they are arbitrary solutions to the free-particle Schrodinger equation
    – N. Steinle
    2 days ago










  • @garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
    – Bruce Greetham
    2 days ago












  • @garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago













up vote
12
down vote

favorite
5









up vote
12
down vote

favorite
5






5





The Hamiltonian of a free particle is $hat H = frac{hat p^2}{2m}$, in position representation
$$ hat H = -frac{hbar^2}{2m} Delta ;. $$
Now consider two wave functions $psi_1(x)$ and $psi_2(x)$ which are smooth enough (say $C^infty$), have compact support, and their support doesn't intersect. Obviously, $langle psi_1 | psi_2 rangle = 0$.



Is the matrix element $ langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle $ zero?




  • On the one hand, the answer should be "obviously yes", since
    $$ langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle = -frac{hbar^2}{2m} int overline{psi_1(x)}, psi^{primeprime}_2(x) ,dx = 0 ;. $$


  • On the other hand, it is common knowledge that wave functions spread, and after $dt$ of time their support will be infinite.
    Therefore I would expect*
    $$ langle psi_1 | psi_2(dt) rangle = langle psi_1 | psi_2 rangle -frac i hbar langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle, dt + mathcal O(dt^2) neq 0 . $$





* To keep it simple, I am only evolving one of the wave functions in time. Otherwise the first order in $dt$ would be zero, but I could ask the same question about the matrix element of $hat H^2$ appearing at the second order.










share|cite|improve this question















The Hamiltonian of a free particle is $hat H = frac{hat p^2}{2m}$, in position representation
$$ hat H = -frac{hbar^2}{2m} Delta ;. $$
Now consider two wave functions $psi_1(x)$ and $psi_2(x)$ which are smooth enough (say $C^infty$), have compact support, and their support doesn't intersect. Obviously, $langle psi_1 | psi_2 rangle = 0$.



Is the matrix element $ langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle $ zero?




  • On the one hand, the answer should be "obviously yes", since
    $$ langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle = -frac{hbar^2}{2m} int overline{psi_1(x)}, psi^{primeprime}_2(x) ,dx = 0 ;. $$


  • On the other hand, it is common knowledge that wave functions spread, and after $dt$ of time their support will be infinite.
    Therefore I would expect*
    $$ langle psi_1 | psi_2(dt) rangle = langle psi_1 | psi_2 rangle -frac i hbar langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle, dt + mathcal O(dt^2) neq 0 . $$





* To keep it simple, I am only evolving one of the wave functions in time. Otherwise the first order in $dt$ would be zero, but I could ask the same question about the matrix element of $hat H^2$ appearing at the second order.







quantum-mechanics hilbert-space wavefunction time-evolution matrix-elements






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago

























asked 2 days ago









Noiralef

3,631927




3,631927












  • I don't know if this is relevant, but I have a question. Is it possible for two $C^infty$ functions to have disjoint support?
    – garyp
    2 days ago












  • Just for clarity, are $psi_{1}(x)$ and $psi_{2}(x)$ arbitrary wavefunctions or are they specifically energy eigenfunctions? I assume you mean that they are arbitrary solutions to the free-particle Schrodinger equation
    – N. Steinle
    2 days ago










  • @garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
    – Bruce Greetham
    2 days ago












  • @garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago


















  • I don't know if this is relevant, but I have a question. Is it possible for two $C^infty$ functions to have disjoint support?
    – garyp
    2 days ago












  • Just for clarity, are $psi_{1}(x)$ and $psi_{2}(x)$ arbitrary wavefunctions or are they specifically energy eigenfunctions? I assume you mean that they are arbitrary solutions to the free-particle Schrodinger equation
    – N. Steinle
    2 days ago










  • @garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
    – Bruce Greetham
    2 days ago












  • @garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago
















I don't know if this is relevant, but I have a question. Is it possible for two $C^infty$ functions to have disjoint support?
– garyp
2 days ago






I don't know if this is relevant, but I have a question. Is it possible for two $C^infty$ functions to have disjoint support?
– garyp
2 days ago














Just for clarity, are $psi_{1}(x)$ and $psi_{2}(x)$ arbitrary wavefunctions or are they specifically energy eigenfunctions? I assume you mean that they are arbitrary solutions to the free-particle Schrodinger equation
– N. Steinle
2 days ago




Just for clarity, are $psi_{1}(x)$ and $psi_{2}(x)$ arbitrary wavefunctions or are they specifically energy eigenfunctions? I assume you mean that they are arbitrary solutions to the free-particle Schrodinger equation
– N. Steinle
2 days ago












@garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
– Bruce Greetham
2 days ago






@garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
– Bruce Greetham
2 days ago














@garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
– Noiralef
2 days ago




@garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
– Noiralef
2 days ago




1




1




@N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
– Noiralef
2 days ago




@N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
– Noiralef
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote



accepted










This is an interesting question. It is reminicent of the popular (but fallacious) "proof" that
$$
exp{iahat p}psi(x) equiv exp{apartial_x}psi(x)=psi(x+a)
$$

that claims that applying the exponential of the derivative operator to $psi$ gives the Taylor expanion of $psi(x+a)$ about $x$. The problem is that if $psi(x)$ is $C^infty$ and of compact support, then each term of the Taylor series is always exactly zero outside the support of $psi(x)$ and so $psi(x)$ can never become non-zero outside its original region of support. Of course $C^infty$ functions of compact support do not have Taylor series that converge to the function, and the resolution of this paradox is to realise that the appropriate definition of $exp{ia hat p}$ comes from its spectral decomposition. In other words we should Fourier expand $psi(x)= langle x|psirangle$ to get $psi(p)equiv langle p|psirangle $, multiply by $e^{iap}$ and then invert the Fourier expansion. Then we obtain $psi(x+a)$.



The same situation applies here. The literal definition of $H$ as a second derivative operator is not sufficiently precise. We must choose a domain for $hat H$ such that it is truly self-adjoint and so possesses a complete set of eigenfunctions. The action of $hat H$ on any function in its domain is then defined in terms of the eigenfunction expansion.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks for the answer! I've never seen that fallacious "proof", but you are right, this seems to be very much related. Just to clarify: Are you saying that a function with compact support is not in the domain of $hat H$, or that it is in the domain but the action of $hat H$ can not be calculated as a defivative?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago










  • @Noiralef It's the "proof" that is usually trotted out in most quantum books/ courses for physicists. My colleagues are always surprised when I tell them that it is fallacious. For your second point. Yes the compactly supported $psi$ is in any reasonable definition of the domain of $hat H$, but I'm pretty sure that the action of the unitary evolution operator $exp{-it hat H}$ (this is what you really want) on it is not given by the derivatives.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago










  • 1. I should have said: I have seen that "proof" many times, and I have probably shown it to students myself, but I had never seen it pointed out as fallacious. 2. Okay, thanks! But sorry - I am still unsure what the answer to the original question is. Would such a matrix element (of $hat H$) be zero?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago












  • @Noiralef I suspect that the matrix element is zero. It's just that the power series in $dt$ for $<psi|psi(t)>$ that you derive will not converge to $<psi|psi(t)>$.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago












  • The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
    – DanielC
    yesterday


















up vote
2
down vote













The core of the issue is that, for unbounded operators $hat A$, the operator exponential is not defined in terms of the power series $exp(hat A) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!}$. And it can not be defined that way, as we don't have a guarantee that this series converges.
Instead, we use the spectral theorem to define
$$ exp(hat A) = int mathrm e^a, |a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da ;, tag{1} $$
where $|a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da$ is the physicist's notation for the projection-valued measure $mathrm dP_a$.
Crucially, this is the definition used in Stone's theorem on strongly continuous unitary groups.



This means in particular that the time evolution of $|psi_2rangle$ is not $|psi_2(mathrm dt)rangle = |psi_2rangle - frac{mathrm i, mathrm dt}{hbar}hat H |psi_2rangle + mathcal O(mathrm dt^2)$ as suggested in the question.
Hence it is not a contradiction that
$$langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle = 0 ;. $$



Side note: As explained in [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.3], definition (1) agrees with the power series for the case of bounded $hat A$.
Further, for all $|psirangle$ that can be written as $|psirangle = int_{-M}^M |a rangle!langle a|varphirangle , mathrm da$ for some $M in mathbb R$ and some $|varphirangle$, the power series $sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!} |psirangle$ converges to $exp(hat A)|psirangle$ [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.5].





As mentioned in the answer by mike stone, there is a simpler example demonstrating the same problem.
Let $D(alpha) = exp(mathrm i alpha hat p)$ be the translation operator ($hbar=1$).
Using definition (1), we immediately see that
$$ langle x | D(alpha) | psi rangle = int mathrm e^{mathrm i alpha p} langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp = langle x+alpha | psi rangle ;. $$
If $psi$ has compact support, this is obviously different from
$$ sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ langle x | (mathrm i alpha hat p)^n | psi rangle }{n!} = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ (alpha partial_x)^n }{n!} langle x | psi rangle = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(mathrm ialpha)^n}{n!} int p^n langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp ;. $$
The latter expression is only correct if we can exchange the order of the integral and the series, as explained also in [Holstein, Swift (1972)].






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I already accepted the answer given by mike stone, but it made me take out my copy of Reed&Simon again and read a bit more. Posting my understanding here in case more people are curious.
    – Noiralef
    yesterday










  • Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
    – DanielC
    yesterday






  • 1




    @DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
    – Noiralef
    yesterday











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

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',
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
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f443176%2fmatrix-elements-of-the-free-particle-hamiltonian%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
5
down vote



accepted










This is an interesting question. It is reminicent of the popular (but fallacious) "proof" that
$$
exp{iahat p}psi(x) equiv exp{apartial_x}psi(x)=psi(x+a)
$$

that claims that applying the exponential of the derivative operator to $psi$ gives the Taylor expanion of $psi(x+a)$ about $x$. The problem is that if $psi(x)$ is $C^infty$ and of compact support, then each term of the Taylor series is always exactly zero outside the support of $psi(x)$ and so $psi(x)$ can never become non-zero outside its original region of support. Of course $C^infty$ functions of compact support do not have Taylor series that converge to the function, and the resolution of this paradox is to realise that the appropriate definition of $exp{ia hat p}$ comes from its spectral decomposition. In other words we should Fourier expand $psi(x)= langle x|psirangle$ to get $psi(p)equiv langle p|psirangle $, multiply by $e^{iap}$ and then invert the Fourier expansion. Then we obtain $psi(x+a)$.



The same situation applies here. The literal definition of $H$ as a second derivative operator is not sufficiently precise. We must choose a domain for $hat H$ such that it is truly self-adjoint and so possesses a complete set of eigenfunctions. The action of $hat H$ on any function in its domain is then defined in terms of the eigenfunction expansion.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks for the answer! I've never seen that fallacious "proof", but you are right, this seems to be very much related. Just to clarify: Are you saying that a function with compact support is not in the domain of $hat H$, or that it is in the domain but the action of $hat H$ can not be calculated as a defivative?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago










  • @Noiralef It's the "proof" that is usually trotted out in most quantum books/ courses for physicists. My colleagues are always surprised when I tell them that it is fallacious. For your second point. Yes the compactly supported $psi$ is in any reasonable definition of the domain of $hat H$, but I'm pretty sure that the action of the unitary evolution operator $exp{-it hat H}$ (this is what you really want) on it is not given by the derivatives.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago










  • 1. I should have said: I have seen that "proof" many times, and I have probably shown it to students myself, but I had never seen it pointed out as fallacious. 2. Okay, thanks! But sorry - I am still unsure what the answer to the original question is. Would such a matrix element (of $hat H$) be zero?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago












  • @Noiralef I suspect that the matrix element is zero. It's just that the power series in $dt$ for $<psi|psi(t)>$ that you derive will not converge to $<psi|psi(t)>$.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago












  • The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
    – DanielC
    yesterday















up vote
5
down vote



accepted










This is an interesting question. It is reminicent of the popular (but fallacious) "proof" that
$$
exp{iahat p}psi(x) equiv exp{apartial_x}psi(x)=psi(x+a)
$$

that claims that applying the exponential of the derivative operator to $psi$ gives the Taylor expanion of $psi(x+a)$ about $x$. The problem is that if $psi(x)$ is $C^infty$ and of compact support, then each term of the Taylor series is always exactly zero outside the support of $psi(x)$ and so $psi(x)$ can never become non-zero outside its original region of support. Of course $C^infty$ functions of compact support do not have Taylor series that converge to the function, and the resolution of this paradox is to realise that the appropriate definition of $exp{ia hat p}$ comes from its spectral decomposition. In other words we should Fourier expand $psi(x)= langle x|psirangle$ to get $psi(p)equiv langle p|psirangle $, multiply by $e^{iap}$ and then invert the Fourier expansion. Then we obtain $psi(x+a)$.



The same situation applies here. The literal definition of $H$ as a second derivative operator is not sufficiently precise. We must choose a domain for $hat H$ such that it is truly self-adjoint and so possesses a complete set of eigenfunctions. The action of $hat H$ on any function in its domain is then defined in terms of the eigenfunction expansion.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks for the answer! I've never seen that fallacious "proof", but you are right, this seems to be very much related. Just to clarify: Are you saying that a function with compact support is not in the domain of $hat H$, or that it is in the domain but the action of $hat H$ can not be calculated as a defivative?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago










  • @Noiralef It's the "proof" that is usually trotted out in most quantum books/ courses for physicists. My colleagues are always surprised when I tell them that it is fallacious. For your second point. Yes the compactly supported $psi$ is in any reasonable definition of the domain of $hat H$, but I'm pretty sure that the action of the unitary evolution operator $exp{-it hat H}$ (this is what you really want) on it is not given by the derivatives.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago










  • 1. I should have said: I have seen that "proof" many times, and I have probably shown it to students myself, but I had never seen it pointed out as fallacious. 2. Okay, thanks! But sorry - I am still unsure what the answer to the original question is. Would such a matrix element (of $hat H$) be zero?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago












  • @Noiralef I suspect that the matrix element is zero. It's just that the power series in $dt$ for $<psi|psi(t)>$ that you derive will not converge to $<psi|psi(t)>$.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago












  • The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
    – DanielC
    yesterday













up vote
5
down vote



accepted







up vote
5
down vote



accepted






This is an interesting question. It is reminicent of the popular (but fallacious) "proof" that
$$
exp{iahat p}psi(x) equiv exp{apartial_x}psi(x)=psi(x+a)
$$

that claims that applying the exponential of the derivative operator to $psi$ gives the Taylor expanion of $psi(x+a)$ about $x$. The problem is that if $psi(x)$ is $C^infty$ and of compact support, then each term of the Taylor series is always exactly zero outside the support of $psi(x)$ and so $psi(x)$ can never become non-zero outside its original region of support. Of course $C^infty$ functions of compact support do not have Taylor series that converge to the function, and the resolution of this paradox is to realise that the appropriate definition of $exp{ia hat p}$ comes from its spectral decomposition. In other words we should Fourier expand $psi(x)= langle x|psirangle$ to get $psi(p)equiv langle p|psirangle $, multiply by $e^{iap}$ and then invert the Fourier expansion. Then we obtain $psi(x+a)$.



The same situation applies here. The literal definition of $H$ as a second derivative operator is not sufficiently precise. We must choose a domain for $hat H$ such that it is truly self-adjoint and so possesses a complete set of eigenfunctions. The action of $hat H$ on any function in its domain is then defined in terms of the eigenfunction expansion.






share|cite|improve this answer














This is an interesting question. It is reminicent of the popular (but fallacious) "proof" that
$$
exp{iahat p}psi(x) equiv exp{apartial_x}psi(x)=psi(x+a)
$$

that claims that applying the exponential of the derivative operator to $psi$ gives the Taylor expanion of $psi(x+a)$ about $x$. The problem is that if $psi(x)$ is $C^infty$ and of compact support, then each term of the Taylor series is always exactly zero outside the support of $psi(x)$ and so $psi(x)$ can never become non-zero outside its original region of support. Of course $C^infty$ functions of compact support do not have Taylor series that converge to the function, and the resolution of this paradox is to realise that the appropriate definition of $exp{ia hat p}$ comes from its spectral decomposition. In other words we should Fourier expand $psi(x)= langle x|psirangle$ to get $psi(p)equiv langle p|psirangle $, multiply by $e^{iap}$ and then invert the Fourier expansion. Then we obtain $psi(x+a)$.



The same situation applies here. The literal definition of $H$ as a second derivative operator is not sufficiently precise. We must choose a domain for $hat H$ such that it is truly self-adjoint and so possesses a complete set of eigenfunctions. The action of $hat H$ on any function in its domain is then defined in terms of the eigenfunction expansion.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited yesterday









DanielC

1,6391819




1,6391819










answered 2 days ago









mike stone

5,6611120




5,6611120












  • Thanks for the answer! I've never seen that fallacious "proof", but you are right, this seems to be very much related. Just to clarify: Are you saying that a function with compact support is not in the domain of $hat H$, or that it is in the domain but the action of $hat H$ can not be calculated as a defivative?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago










  • @Noiralef It's the "proof" that is usually trotted out in most quantum books/ courses for physicists. My colleagues are always surprised when I tell them that it is fallacious. For your second point. Yes the compactly supported $psi$ is in any reasonable definition of the domain of $hat H$, but I'm pretty sure that the action of the unitary evolution operator $exp{-it hat H}$ (this is what you really want) on it is not given by the derivatives.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago










  • 1. I should have said: I have seen that "proof" many times, and I have probably shown it to students myself, but I had never seen it pointed out as fallacious. 2. Okay, thanks! But sorry - I am still unsure what the answer to the original question is. Would such a matrix element (of $hat H$) be zero?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago












  • @Noiralef I suspect that the matrix element is zero. It's just that the power series in $dt$ for $<psi|psi(t)>$ that you derive will not converge to $<psi|psi(t)>$.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago












  • The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
    – DanielC
    yesterday


















  • Thanks for the answer! I've never seen that fallacious "proof", but you are right, this seems to be very much related. Just to clarify: Are you saying that a function with compact support is not in the domain of $hat H$, or that it is in the domain but the action of $hat H$ can not be calculated as a defivative?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago










  • @Noiralef It's the "proof" that is usually trotted out in most quantum books/ courses for physicists. My colleagues are always surprised when I tell them that it is fallacious. For your second point. Yes the compactly supported $psi$ is in any reasonable definition of the domain of $hat H$, but I'm pretty sure that the action of the unitary evolution operator $exp{-it hat H}$ (this is what you really want) on it is not given by the derivatives.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago










  • 1. I should have said: I have seen that "proof" many times, and I have probably shown it to students myself, but I had never seen it pointed out as fallacious. 2. Okay, thanks! But sorry - I am still unsure what the answer to the original question is. Would such a matrix element (of $hat H$) be zero?
    – Noiralef
    2 days ago












  • @Noiralef I suspect that the matrix element is zero. It's just that the power series in $dt$ for $<psi|psi(t)>$ that you derive will not converge to $<psi|psi(t)>$.
    – mike stone
    2 days ago












  • The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
    – DanielC
    yesterday
















Thanks for the answer! I've never seen that fallacious "proof", but you are right, this seems to be very much related. Just to clarify: Are you saying that a function with compact support is not in the domain of $hat H$, or that it is in the domain but the action of $hat H$ can not be calculated as a defivative?
– Noiralef
2 days ago




Thanks for the answer! I've never seen that fallacious "proof", but you are right, this seems to be very much related. Just to clarify: Are you saying that a function with compact support is not in the domain of $hat H$, or that it is in the domain but the action of $hat H$ can not be calculated as a defivative?
– Noiralef
2 days ago












@Noiralef It's the "proof" that is usually trotted out in most quantum books/ courses for physicists. My colleagues are always surprised when I tell them that it is fallacious. For your second point. Yes the compactly supported $psi$ is in any reasonable definition of the domain of $hat H$, but I'm pretty sure that the action of the unitary evolution operator $exp{-it hat H}$ (this is what you really want) on it is not given by the derivatives.
– mike stone
2 days ago




@Noiralef It's the "proof" that is usually trotted out in most quantum books/ courses for physicists. My colleagues are always surprised when I tell them that it is fallacious. For your second point. Yes the compactly supported $psi$ is in any reasonable definition of the domain of $hat H$, but I'm pretty sure that the action of the unitary evolution operator $exp{-it hat H}$ (this is what you really want) on it is not given by the derivatives.
– mike stone
2 days ago












1. I should have said: I have seen that "proof" many times, and I have probably shown it to students myself, but I had never seen it pointed out as fallacious. 2. Okay, thanks! But sorry - I am still unsure what the answer to the original question is. Would such a matrix element (of $hat H$) be zero?
– Noiralef
2 days ago






1. I should have said: I have seen that "proof" many times, and I have probably shown it to students myself, but I had never seen it pointed out as fallacious. 2. Okay, thanks! But sorry - I am still unsure what the answer to the original question is. Would such a matrix element (of $hat H$) be zero?
– Noiralef
2 days ago














@Noiralef I suspect that the matrix element is zero. It's just that the power series in $dt$ for $<psi|psi(t)>$ that you derive will not converge to $<psi|psi(t)>$.
– mike stone
2 days ago






@Noiralef I suspect that the matrix element is zero. It's just that the power series in $dt$ for $<psi|psi(t)>$ that you derive will not converge to $<psi|psi(t)>$.
– mike stone
2 days ago














The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
– DanielC
yesterday




The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
– DanielC
yesterday










up vote
2
down vote













The core of the issue is that, for unbounded operators $hat A$, the operator exponential is not defined in terms of the power series $exp(hat A) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!}$. And it can not be defined that way, as we don't have a guarantee that this series converges.
Instead, we use the spectral theorem to define
$$ exp(hat A) = int mathrm e^a, |a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da ;, tag{1} $$
where $|a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da$ is the physicist's notation for the projection-valued measure $mathrm dP_a$.
Crucially, this is the definition used in Stone's theorem on strongly continuous unitary groups.



This means in particular that the time evolution of $|psi_2rangle$ is not $|psi_2(mathrm dt)rangle = |psi_2rangle - frac{mathrm i, mathrm dt}{hbar}hat H |psi_2rangle + mathcal O(mathrm dt^2)$ as suggested in the question.
Hence it is not a contradiction that
$$langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle = 0 ;. $$



Side note: As explained in [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.3], definition (1) agrees with the power series for the case of bounded $hat A$.
Further, for all $|psirangle$ that can be written as $|psirangle = int_{-M}^M |a rangle!langle a|varphirangle , mathrm da$ for some $M in mathbb R$ and some $|varphirangle$, the power series $sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!} |psirangle$ converges to $exp(hat A)|psirangle$ [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.5].





As mentioned in the answer by mike stone, there is a simpler example demonstrating the same problem.
Let $D(alpha) = exp(mathrm i alpha hat p)$ be the translation operator ($hbar=1$).
Using definition (1), we immediately see that
$$ langle x | D(alpha) | psi rangle = int mathrm e^{mathrm i alpha p} langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp = langle x+alpha | psi rangle ;. $$
If $psi$ has compact support, this is obviously different from
$$ sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ langle x | (mathrm i alpha hat p)^n | psi rangle }{n!} = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ (alpha partial_x)^n }{n!} langle x | psi rangle = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(mathrm ialpha)^n}{n!} int p^n langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp ;. $$
The latter expression is only correct if we can exchange the order of the integral and the series, as explained also in [Holstein, Swift (1972)].






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I already accepted the answer given by mike stone, but it made me take out my copy of Reed&Simon again and read a bit more. Posting my understanding here in case more people are curious.
    – Noiralef
    yesterday










  • Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
    – DanielC
    yesterday






  • 1




    @DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
    – Noiralef
    yesterday















up vote
2
down vote













The core of the issue is that, for unbounded operators $hat A$, the operator exponential is not defined in terms of the power series $exp(hat A) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!}$. And it can not be defined that way, as we don't have a guarantee that this series converges.
Instead, we use the spectral theorem to define
$$ exp(hat A) = int mathrm e^a, |a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da ;, tag{1} $$
where $|a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da$ is the physicist's notation for the projection-valued measure $mathrm dP_a$.
Crucially, this is the definition used in Stone's theorem on strongly continuous unitary groups.



This means in particular that the time evolution of $|psi_2rangle$ is not $|psi_2(mathrm dt)rangle = |psi_2rangle - frac{mathrm i, mathrm dt}{hbar}hat H |psi_2rangle + mathcal O(mathrm dt^2)$ as suggested in the question.
Hence it is not a contradiction that
$$langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle = 0 ;. $$



Side note: As explained in [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.3], definition (1) agrees with the power series for the case of bounded $hat A$.
Further, for all $|psirangle$ that can be written as $|psirangle = int_{-M}^M |a rangle!langle a|varphirangle , mathrm da$ for some $M in mathbb R$ and some $|varphirangle$, the power series $sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!} |psirangle$ converges to $exp(hat A)|psirangle$ [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.5].





As mentioned in the answer by mike stone, there is a simpler example demonstrating the same problem.
Let $D(alpha) = exp(mathrm i alpha hat p)$ be the translation operator ($hbar=1$).
Using definition (1), we immediately see that
$$ langle x | D(alpha) | psi rangle = int mathrm e^{mathrm i alpha p} langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp = langle x+alpha | psi rangle ;. $$
If $psi$ has compact support, this is obviously different from
$$ sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ langle x | (mathrm i alpha hat p)^n | psi rangle }{n!} = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ (alpha partial_x)^n }{n!} langle x | psi rangle = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(mathrm ialpha)^n}{n!} int p^n langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp ;. $$
The latter expression is only correct if we can exchange the order of the integral and the series, as explained also in [Holstein, Swift (1972)].






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I already accepted the answer given by mike stone, but it made me take out my copy of Reed&Simon again and read a bit more. Posting my understanding here in case more people are curious.
    – Noiralef
    yesterday










  • Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
    – DanielC
    yesterday






  • 1




    @DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
    – Noiralef
    yesterday













up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









The core of the issue is that, for unbounded operators $hat A$, the operator exponential is not defined in terms of the power series $exp(hat A) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!}$. And it can not be defined that way, as we don't have a guarantee that this series converges.
Instead, we use the spectral theorem to define
$$ exp(hat A) = int mathrm e^a, |a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da ;, tag{1} $$
where $|a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da$ is the physicist's notation for the projection-valued measure $mathrm dP_a$.
Crucially, this is the definition used in Stone's theorem on strongly continuous unitary groups.



This means in particular that the time evolution of $|psi_2rangle$ is not $|psi_2(mathrm dt)rangle = |psi_2rangle - frac{mathrm i, mathrm dt}{hbar}hat H |psi_2rangle + mathcal O(mathrm dt^2)$ as suggested in the question.
Hence it is not a contradiction that
$$langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle = 0 ;. $$



Side note: As explained in [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.3], definition (1) agrees with the power series for the case of bounded $hat A$.
Further, for all $|psirangle$ that can be written as $|psirangle = int_{-M}^M |a rangle!langle a|varphirangle , mathrm da$ for some $M in mathbb R$ and some $|varphirangle$, the power series $sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!} |psirangle$ converges to $exp(hat A)|psirangle$ [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.5].





As mentioned in the answer by mike stone, there is a simpler example demonstrating the same problem.
Let $D(alpha) = exp(mathrm i alpha hat p)$ be the translation operator ($hbar=1$).
Using definition (1), we immediately see that
$$ langle x | D(alpha) | psi rangle = int mathrm e^{mathrm i alpha p} langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp = langle x+alpha | psi rangle ;. $$
If $psi$ has compact support, this is obviously different from
$$ sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ langle x | (mathrm i alpha hat p)^n | psi rangle }{n!} = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ (alpha partial_x)^n }{n!} langle x | psi rangle = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(mathrm ialpha)^n}{n!} int p^n langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp ;. $$
The latter expression is only correct if we can exchange the order of the integral and the series, as explained also in [Holstein, Swift (1972)].






share|cite|improve this answer












The core of the issue is that, for unbounded operators $hat A$, the operator exponential is not defined in terms of the power series $exp(hat A) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!}$. And it can not be defined that way, as we don't have a guarantee that this series converges.
Instead, we use the spectral theorem to define
$$ exp(hat A) = int mathrm e^a, |a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da ;, tag{1} $$
where $|a rangle!langle a| , mathrm da$ is the physicist's notation for the projection-valued measure $mathrm dP_a$.
Crucially, this is the definition used in Stone's theorem on strongly continuous unitary groups.



This means in particular that the time evolution of $|psi_2rangle$ is not $|psi_2(mathrm dt)rangle = |psi_2rangle - frac{mathrm i, mathrm dt}{hbar}hat H |psi_2rangle + mathcal O(mathrm dt^2)$ as suggested in the question.
Hence it is not a contradiction that
$$langle psi_1 | hat H | psi_2 rangle = 0 ;. $$



Side note: As explained in [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.3], definition (1) agrees with the power series for the case of bounded $hat A$.
Further, for all $|psirangle$ that can be written as $|psirangle = int_{-M}^M |a rangle!langle a|varphirangle , mathrm da$ for some $M in mathbb R$ and some $|varphirangle$, the power series $sum_{k=0}^infty frac{hat A^n}{n!} |psirangle$ converges to $exp(hat A)|psirangle$ [Reed, Simon (1981), VIII.5].





As mentioned in the answer by mike stone, there is a simpler example demonstrating the same problem.
Let $D(alpha) = exp(mathrm i alpha hat p)$ be the translation operator ($hbar=1$).
Using definition (1), we immediately see that
$$ langle x | D(alpha) | psi rangle = int mathrm e^{mathrm i alpha p} langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp = langle x+alpha | psi rangle ;. $$
If $psi$ has compact support, this is obviously different from
$$ sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ langle x | (mathrm i alpha hat p)^n | psi rangle }{n!} = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{ (alpha partial_x)^n }{n!} langle x | psi rangle = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(mathrm ialpha)^n}{n!} int p^n langle x | p rangle langle p | psi rangle ,mathrm dp ;. $$
The latter expression is only correct if we can exchange the order of the integral and the series, as explained also in [Holstein, Swift (1972)].







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Noiralef

3,631927




3,631927








  • 1




    I already accepted the answer given by mike stone, but it made me take out my copy of Reed&Simon again and read a bit more. Posting my understanding here in case more people are curious.
    – Noiralef
    yesterday










  • Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
    – DanielC
    yesterday






  • 1




    @DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
    – Noiralef
    yesterday














  • 1




    I already accepted the answer given by mike stone, but it made me take out my copy of Reed&Simon again and read a bit more. Posting my understanding here in case more people are curious.
    – Noiralef
    yesterday










  • Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
    – DanielC
    yesterday






  • 1




    @DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
    – Noiralef
    yesterday








1




1




I already accepted the answer given by mike stone, but it made me take out my copy of Reed&Simon again and read a bit more. Posting my understanding here in case more people are curious.
– Noiralef
yesterday




I already accepted the answer given by mike stone, but it made me take out my copy of Reed&Simon again and read a bit more. Posting my understanding here in case more people are curious.
– Noiralef
yesterday












Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
– DanielC
yesterday




Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
– DanielC
yesterday




1




1




@DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
– Noiralef
yesterday




@DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
– Noiralef
yesterday


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f443176%2fmatrix-elements-of-the-free-particle-hamiltonian%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

Alcedinidae

Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]