Timeline for Issues with operator associativity in quantum mechanics
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2022 at 1:08 | comment | added | Zorawar | There is only one way that $\hat{p}\hat{x}\psi$ should be read, and that is as $\hat{p}(\hat{x}\psi)$. Likewise, $(\hat{A}\hat{p}\hat{x})$ would be an operator that maps $\psi$ to $\hat{A}[\hat{p}(\hat{x}\psi)]$. | |
| Mar 21, 2022 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1506012783397249029 | ||
| Mar 21, 2022 at 18:53 | comment | added | rob♦ | A number of further comments removed. A person making a post on Physics Meta would also want to make sure their post was consistent with the code of conduct. Knock it off, here. | |
| Mar 21, 2022 at 18:38 | comment | added | rob♦ | A number of comments removed. A person who wanted to discuss grammar might make a post on Physics Meta, but they would want to do their research first. | |
| Mar 21, 2022 at 17:27 | history | edited | Some Student | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 61 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2022 at 15:03 | comment | added | Tyberius | As Ricky implicitly points out in their answer, the issue is that you didn't use the chain rule when applying the derivative. The derivative should be applied to $x\psi(x)$, not just $x$. | |
| Mar 21, 2022 at 13:16 | comment | added | Javier | Since you only have two operators, and associativity is the property $(AB)C = A(BC)$, it cannot possibly be the issue here. | |
| Mar 21, 2022 at 7:05 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Mar 21, 2022 at 2:51 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Mar 20, 2022 at 23:22 | answer | added | pb1729 | timeline score: 10 | |
| Mar 20, 2022 at 22:58 | history | asked | Some Student | CC BY-SA 4.0 |