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
Nov 25 at 13:45
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
Nov 25 at 13:52
@garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
– Bruce Greetham
Nov 25 at 13:53
@garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:13
1
@N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:15
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 Nov 25 at 14:13
asked Nov 25 at 12:56
Noiralef
3,6461927
3,6461927
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
Nov 25 at 13:45
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
Nov 25 at 13:52
@garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
– Bruce Greetham
Nov 25 at 13:53
@garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:13
1
@N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:15
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
Nov 25 at 13:45
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
Nov 25 at 13:52
@garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
– Bruce Greetham
Nov 25 at 13:53
@garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:13
1
@N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:15
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
Nov 25 at 13:45
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
Nov 25 at 13:45
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
Nov 25 at 13:52
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
Nov 25 at 13:52
@garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
– Bruce Greetham
Nov 25 at 13:53
@garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
– Bruce Greetham
Nov 25 at 13:53
@garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:13
@garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:13
1
1
@N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:15
@N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:15
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
Nov 25 at 14:37
@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
Nov 25 at 15:01
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
Nov 25 at 15:35
@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
Nov 25 at 16:41
The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 16:26
|
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
Nov 26 at 15:45
Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 21:13
1
@DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
– Noiralef
Nov 26 at 22:19
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
Nov 25 at 14:37
@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
Nov 25 at 15:01
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
Nov 25 at 15:35
@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
Nov 25 at 16:41
The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 16:26
|
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
Nov 25 at 14:37
@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
Nov 25 at 15:01
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
Nov 25 at 15:35
@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
Nov 25 at 16:41
The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 16:26
|
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 Nov 26 at 18:04
DanielC
1,6471819
1,6471819
answered Nov 25 at 14:25
mike stone
5,7211120
5,7211120
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
Nov 25 at 14:37
@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
Nov 25 at 15:01
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
Nov 25 at 15:35
@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
Nov 25 at 16:41
The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 16:26
|
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
Nov 25 at 14:37
@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
Nov 25 at 15:01
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
Nov 25 at 15:35
@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
Nov 25 at 16:41
The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 16:26
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
Nov 25 at 14:37
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
Nov 25 at 14:37
@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
Nov 25 at 15:01
@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
Nov 25 at 15:01
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
Nov 25 at 15:35
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
Nov 25 at 15:35
@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
Nov 25 at 16:41
@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
Nov 25 at 16:41
The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 16:26
The "fallacious proof" applies to $C_{0}^{infty}$ only? I believe it is correct for Schwartz test functions of $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R})$.
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 16:26
|
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
Nov 26 at 15:45
Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 21:13
1
@DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
– Noiralef
Nov 26 at 22:19
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
Nov 26 at 15:45
Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 21:13
1
@DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
– Noiralef
Nov 26 at 22:19
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 Nov 26 at 15:43
Noiralef
3,6461927
3,6461927
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
Nov 26 at 15:45
Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 21:13
1
@DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
– Noiralef
Nov 26 at 22:19
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
Nov 26 at 15:45
Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 21:13
1
@DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
– Noiralef
Nov 26 at 22:19
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
Nov 26 at 15:45
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
Nov 26 at 15:45
Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 21:13
Can you give the full reference of Holstein & Swift?
– DanielC
Nov 26 at 21:13
1
1
@DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
– Noiralef
Nov 26 at 22:19
@DanielC doi.org/10.1119/1.1986678
– Noiralef
Nov 26 at 22:19
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%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
Nov 25 at 13:45
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
Nov 25 at 13:52
@garyp yes: $e^{-1/x^2} x>0$ and $e^{1/(-x)^2} x<0$
– Bruce Greetham
Nov 25 at 13:53
@garyp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:13
1
@N.Steinle They are arbitrary wave functions. In particular, they are not energy eigenfunctions -- those have infinite support.
– Noiralef
Nov 25 at 14:15