Timeline for Position operator acting on wavefunctions. Why is $\left<x\right|\hat{X}\left|{\psi}\right> =\hat{X} \left<x|{\psi}\right> $?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2019 at 21:16 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | Oh ok. Thanks for that | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 21:14 | comment | added | Cosmas Zachos | @Aaron Stevens. Well, no, I wouldn't quite blame the victim... (2.122) and (2.124) use the very same symbol for the operator and for the matrix representation thereof. For somebody who has never seen the stunt, it appears disorienting, although I have not studied the book in sufficient detail to blame the authors. It certainly has numerous strong points to avoid the extrafenestrial landfill discussed... | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 20:56 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | I don't think the book has abused any notation. It looks like it is the OP doing the abuse. | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 16:18 | history | edited | Cosmas Zachos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 133 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2019 at 16:13 | comment | added | knzhou | The whole Internet is one giant landfill... except for this site! | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 15:55 | comment | added | Cosmas Zachos | Outside every window there is a growing book landfill... And the internet? | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 15:51 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | @knzhou Ah ok. Yeah I misread that. To be fair I don't see anywhere in the "derivation" where it says $\hat X\psi(x)=x\psi(x)$. It looks like the OP put that themselves? | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 15:51 | comment | added | knzhou | @Aaron Stevens Sorry, I mean that this should be explained in any decent introductory book the first time it comes up. The fact that it wasn’t in OP’s book means they should throw that book out the window. | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 13:59 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | @knzhou But you recommend using a different book in the comments to the question? | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 13:15 | history | edited | Cosmas Zachos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 42 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2019 at 6:13 | comment | added | knzhou | True, what the book does is "standard". But it inevitably sends confused students to places like this, where they can receive a real explanation. The real explanation has to be provided at some point to achieve understanding -- and I just believe the right place should be the book the student is already reading. | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 6:11 | comment | added | knzhou | Abuses of notation are forgivable as long as the author is careful the first time an abuse of that type is committed. Understanding how things must be taught differently the first time is what distinguishes good pedagogy from bad. | |
| Sep 3, 2019 at 23:10 | history | edited | Cosmas Zachos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| Sep 3, 2019 at 22:59 | history | answered | Cosmas Zachos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |