I've been studying the postulates of QM and seeing how to derive important ideas from them. One thing that I haven't been able to derive from them, however, is the identity of the momentum operator.

[For simplicity, I'm only thinking about no relativistic effects, no spin, no time-dependent potentials, and one spatial dimension. Also I'm assuming the position operator is simply multiplication by x, as in, I'm in position space (So the Hamiltonian operator is $\displaystyle H = -\hbar^2/2m\nabla^2+V$)]

I know that the momentum operator is P = -iℏ ∂/∂x.

But how do I get there from the postulates? I know that it makes sense, as it results in the Ehrenfest Theorem, the De Broglie wavelength hypothesis, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (for x and p), the momentum operator being the generator of the translation operator, and possibly many other desirable theorems, and correlations with classical momentum.

But none of these are postulates (at least, not in the various formalisms I encountered), so you can't derive P = -iℏ ∂/∂x from them. Rather, they are consequences of it. You need to know the operator beforehand to see that they are correct. Yes, this is just semantics, but that is the core issue for me:

Regardless of how much sense it makes, is the identity P = -iℏ ∂/∂x (under the assumptions I made) a Postulate, meaning that you can't derive it from other postulates, or can it in fact be obtained from them? And in the latter case, could you show me how?

Note: I know that there are many different and equivalent sets of postulates for QM. But in none that I saw did they name it as a postulate nor properly derived it.

I've been studying the postulates of QM and seeing how to derive important ideas from them. One thing that I haven't been able to derive from them, however, is the identity of the momentum operator.

For simplicity, I'm only thinking about no relativistic effects, no spin, no time-dependent potentials, and one spatial dimension. Also I'm assuming the position operator is simply multiplication by $x$, as in, I'm in position space. So the Hamiltonian operator is $ H = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2+V$.

I know that the momentum operator is $p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}$.

But how do I get there from the postulates? I know that it makes sense, as it results in the Ehrenfest Theorem, the De Broglie wavelength hypothesis, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (for $x$ and $p$), the momentum operator being the generator of the translation operator, and possibly many other desirable theorems, and correlations with classical momentum.

But none of these are postulates (at least, not in the various formalisms I encountered), so you can't derive $p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ from them. Rather, they are consequences of it. You need to know the operator beforehand to see that they are correct. Yes, this is just semantics, but that is the core issue for me:

Regardless of how much sense it makes, is the identity $p = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ (under the assumptions I made) a Postulate, meaning that you can't derive it from other postulates, or can it in fact be obtained from them? And in the latter case, could you show me how?

Note: I know that there are many different and equivalent sets of postulates for QM. But in none that I saw did they name it as a postulate nor properly derived it.

I've been studying the postulates of QM and seeing how to derive important ideas from them. One thing that I haven't been able to derive from them, however, is the identity of the momentum operator.

[For simplicity, I'm only thinking on no relativistic effects, no spin, no time-dependant potentials, and one spatial dimension. Also I'm assuming the position operator is simply multiplication by x, as in, I'm in position space (So the Hamiltonian operator is $\displaystyle H = -\hbar^2/2m\nabla^2+V$)]

I know that the momentum operator is P = -iℏ ∂/∂x.

But how do I get there from the postulates? I know that it makes sense, as it results in the Ehrenfest Theorem, the De Broglie wavelength hypothesis, the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle (for x and p), the momentum operator being the generator of the translation operator, and possibly many other desirable theorems, and correlations with classical momentum.

But none of these are postulates (at least, not in the various formalisms I encountered), so you can't derive P = -iℏ ∂/∂x from them. Rather, they are consequences of it. You need to know the operator beforehand to see that they are correct. Yes, this is just semantics, but that is the core issue for me:

Regardless of how much sense it makes, is the identity P = -iℏ ∂/∂x (under the assumptions I made) a Postulate, meaning that you can't derive it from other postulates, or can it in fact be obtained from them? And in the latter case, could you show me how?

Note: I know that there are many different and equivalent sets of postulates for QM. But in none that I saw did they name it as a postulate nor properly derived it.

I've been studying the postulates of QM and seeing how to derive important ideas from them. One thing that I haven't been able to derive from them, however, is the identity of the momentum operator.

[For simplicity, I'm only thinking about no relativistic effects, no spin, no time-dependent potentials, and one spatial dimension. Also I'm assuming the position operator is simply multiplication by x, as in, I'm in position space (So the Hamiltonian operator is $\displaystyle H = -\hbar^2/2m\nabla^2+V$)]

I know that the momentum operator is P = -iℏ ∂/∂x.

But how do I get there from the postulates? I know that it makes sense, as it results in the Ehrenfest Theorem, the De Broglie wavelength hypothesis, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (for x and p), the momentum operator being the generator of the translation operator, and possibly many other desirable theorems, and correlations with classical momentum.

But none of these are postulates (at least, not in the various formalisms I encountered), so you can't derive P = -iℏ ∂/∂x from them. Rather, they are consequences of it. You need to know the operator beforehand to see that they are correct. Yes, this is just semantics, but that is the core issue for me:

Regardless of how much sense it makes, is the identity P = -iℏ ∂/∂x (under the assumptions I made) a Postulate, meaning that you can't derive it from other postulates, or can it in fact be obtained from them? And in the latter case, could you show me how?

Note: I know that there are many different and equivalent sets of postulates for QM. But in none that I saw did they name it as a postulate nor properly derived it.