1
$\begingroup$

I am talking in the context of quantum mechanics. Is there a case where $\hat{V}$ does not simply multiply the function it operates on with itself, $V(x,t)$?

For the harmonic oscillator: $\hat{V}\psi = \frac{1}{2}m\omega^2x^2\psi$. It just multiplies the wavefunction. Is there any case where $\hat{V} = \partial_x$, for example? Does it even make any physical sense to have a potential energy function depend on the wavefunction?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Not quite what you asked for in terms of momentum-dependent potentials but a function of $x$ such as $V(x)$ acts by multiplication on $\psi(x)$ in position space but it will act by derivative $\hat x\to -i\hbar \partial_p$ on the momentum wavefunctions $\psi(p)$. On such functions it is the momentum that acts by multiplication: $\hat p\psi(p)=p\psi(p)$.

The usual example is the linear potential where $$ \hat H=\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}+ \alpha \hat x $$ with the Schrodinger equation $$ \left(\frac{p^2}{2m}-i\alpha\hbar\frac{d}{dp}\right)\psi(p)=E\psi(p) $$ in momentum space.

The solution in position space is an Airy function. In momentum space integration is immediate.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't realize that a potential operator that includes partial derivative with respect to position implied momentum dependence. This makes very much sense! $\endgroup$
    – alexk745
    Commented Dec 6, 2020 at 1:26
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose partial derivative with respect to time would imply $V(E)$ because $\hat{E} = i\hbar \partial_t$? Of course, I don't think this makes sense physically but at least mathematically? $\endgroup$
    – alexk745
    Commented Dec 6, 2020 at 1:30
  • $\begingroup$ I've never see the above $V(E)$. Since $V$ is a potential how can it itself depend on $E$? $\psi(x)$ and $\psi(p)$ are related via (spatial) Fourier transform and this is what induces $x\to -i\hbar \partial_p$. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2020 at 1:34
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I was just editing my comment to point that out. But mathematically at least? Anyways, I just didn't see the connection originally which comes from using different bases. I think I understand now! $\endgroup$
    – alexk745
    Commented Dec 6, 2020 at 1:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.