Matrix elements of the free particle Hamiltonian
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
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
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
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
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
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
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space wavefunction time-evolution matrix-elements
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
|
show 3 more comments
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)].
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
add a comment |
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.
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
|
show 3 more comments
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.
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
|
show 3 more comments
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.
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.
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
|
show 3 more comments
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
|
show 3 more comments
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)].
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
add a comment |
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)].
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
add a comment |
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)].
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)].
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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%2f443176%2fmatrix-elements-of-the-free-particle-hamiltonian%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
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