I understand from several heuristic arguments that in one dimension, the quantum-mechanical operator $\hat{p} = -i\hbar\,\partial_x$ corresponds to the classical momentum $p$, in the sense that a particle described by the wavefunction $\Psi(x,t)$ has expected momentum $$ \langle p \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi^* \hat{p} \Psi \,\mathrm{d}x. $$ Why does it then follow that the quantum-mechanical operator $\hat{p}^2 = \hat{p} \circ \hat{p}$ corresponds to the square of the classical momentum, $p^2$? In general,does the square of a classical quantity $q$ always correspond to the composition of its quantum-mechanical operator, $\hat{q}$, with itself? Does the same apply to higher powers of $q$, i.e. does the $n$-fold composition $\hat{q} \circ \hat{q} \circ \cdots \circ \hat{q}$ form the operator corresponding to $q^n$?
2 Answers
Since $\hat{p}$ is a Hermitian operator, one can always expand the wave function $|\psi\rangle$ as a linear combination of the eigenstates of $\hat{p}$, $$|\psi\rangle=\sum_{p}\psi(p)|p\rangle,$$ where the eigenstate $|p\rangle$ satisfies the equation $\hat{p}|p\rangle=p|p\rangle$. With this setup, we can first show $\langle\psi|\hat{p}|\psi\rangle=\langle p\rangle$ and then show $\langle\psi|\hat{p}\circ\hat{p}|\psi\rangle=\langle p^2\rangle$. Following is the math. $$\begin{split} \langle\psi|\hat{p}|\psi\rangle&=\sum_{p_1}\sum_{p_2}\psi^*(p_1)\psi(p_2)\langle p_1|\hat{p}|p_2\rangle\\ &=\sum_{p_1}\sum_{p_2}\psi^*(p_1)\psi(p_2)\langle p_1|p_2|p_2\rangle\\ &=\sum_{p_1}\sum_{p_2}\psi^*(p_1)\psi(p_2)p_2\langle p_1|p_2\rangle\\ &=\sum_{p_1}\sum_{p_2}\psi^*(p_1)\psi(p_2)p_2\delta_{p_1,p_2}\\ &=\sum_{p}\psi^*(p)\psi(p)p\\ &=\sum_{p}\rho(p) p\\ &=\langle p\rangle \end{split}$$ Note that the square of the norm of the wave function $\psi^*(p)\psi(p)=|\psi(p)|^2=\rho(p)$ gives the probability distribution $\rho(p)$, and the last line is just the definition of the expectation value of the random variable $p$. The same deduction follows for $\langle p^2\rangle$. $$\begin{split} \langle\psi|\hat{p}\circ\hat{p}|\psi\rangle&=\sum_{p_1}\sum_{p_2}\psi^*(p_1)\psi(p_2)\langle p_1|\hat{p}\circ\hat{p}|p_2\rangle\\ &=\sum_{p_1}\sum_{p_2}\psi^*(p_1)\psi(p_2)p_2\langle p_1|\hat{p}|p_2\rangle\\ &=\sum_{p_1}\sum_{p_2}\psi^*(p_1)\psi(p_2)p_2^2\langle p_1|p_2\rangle\\ &=\sum_{p_1}\sum_{p_2}\psi^*(p_1)\psi(p_2)p_2^2\delta_{p_1,p_2}\\ &=\sum_{p}\psi^*(p)\psi(p)p^2\\ &=\sum_{p}\rho(p) p^2\\ &=\langle p^2\rangle \end{split}$$ One can see the above deduction can be generalized to any power, and we do have $\langle\psi|\hat{p}^{\circ n}|\psi\rangle=\langle p^n\rangle$. One can go even further using the power series expansion of analytic functions that $f(p)=f_0+f_1 p+\frac{1}{2} f_2 p^2+\cdots$ to show that the correspondence between operator and expectation value even holds for functions $\langle\psi|f(\hat{p})|\psi\rangle=\langle f(p)\rangle$. And of cause $\hat{p}$ is not limited to momentum operator, it can be replaced by any Hermitian operator. The statement is that for any physical observable, represented by a Hermitian operator $\hat{A}$ in quantum mechanics, the operator $f(\hat{A})$ corresponds to its classical observable $\langle f(A)\rangle$ for any analytic function $f$.
-
2$\begingroup$ The idea here is right, but not the way how it's done with rigor. In general for, Self-adjoint operators, we have $\text{dom} \, T^2 \subset \text{dom} \, T$, and may be the case that $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty \text{dom} \, T^n =0$, so that the operator defined by the power series is only trivialy defined. This only works in the case that the operator $T$ is bounded. The right way to define functions of operators is via the spectral theorem. Being $\mu_\psi^T$ the spectral measure of $T$ with respect to $\psi$, we define $\langle f(T)\rangle=\int_\Bbb{R} f(t)\mu_\psi^T(t)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2014 at 12:39
-
$\begingroup$ You (@Mateus Sampaio) are right about the general problem, these things must be handled by means of the general spectral theory. However for $T$ unbounded self-adjoint (also for unbounded closed normal operators), $\cap^\infty_{n=1} dom(T^n)\neq \emptyset$ and that intersection always includes a dense subspace of vectors! For instance all vectors in the subspaces $P^{(T)}_{[a,b]}({\cal H})$ ($P^{(T)}$ being the PVM of $T$) for every $a,b \in \mathbb R$, $b>a$. For these vectors $\psi$, for instance $e^{itT}\psi = \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \frac{(it^n)}{n!}T^n \psi$... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2014 at 14:58
-
$\begingroup$ You are right, I made a mistake in my claim. But the definition via power series has complicated issues, like the radius of convergence of the series, even if $\psi \in P^T_{[a,b]}$ (what is not an issue in your example, since the radius is $\infty$) and cannot handle the definition of Borel functions of operators in general. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2014 at 15:30
-
$\begingroup$ I agree, the definition of $f(T)$ via power series is almost always impossibly difficult to handle and should be avoided....The case of the exponential is very particular as there are several results in the literature (the "theory of analytic vectors"), by Nelson in particular... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2014 at 16:59
If I understand correctly the question (not sure I do...), The question is basically a linear algebra one.
Consider an operator $\hat{A}$, that has a eigenvalue $a$, the eigenfunctions/eigenvectors of $\hat{A}$ are denoted by $|a\rangle$ such that: $$ \hat{A}|a\rangle=a|a\rangle $$
Now consider a composite of $\hat{A}\circ\hat{A}$, that operates on $|a\rangle$: $$ \hat{A}\circ\hat{A}|a\rangle=a\hat{A}|a\rangle=a^2 |a\rangle $$ So it is a convenient notation to write $\hat{A}^2\equiv\hat{A}\circ\hat{A}$ at is also used in mathematics notation.
Another fun fact is that an operator will always commute with itself thusly: $$ \left[\hat{A},\hat{A}\right]=0 $$ So there is no fear of ambiguity in using a term like $\hat{A}^2$ or $\hat{A}^n$ for that matter.
As for the physical correspondence - the operators themselves are labeled by the expectation value they yield, thus in momentum space, $\hat{P}$ operating on a momentum ket, yields the eigenvalue of the momentum. "sandwiched" together like so: $$ \langle p|\hat{P}|p\rangle =p $$ this yields the correct eigenvalue that corresponds to the momentum of that state. It is also a fun fact, that: $$ \langle p|\hat{X}|p\rangle \neq x $$ So it is a convenient labeling convention essentially.
edit: On convention: "for fundamental properties we will borrow only names from classical physics" - J.Schwinger
One can see momentum as the generator of translations, so applying the operator $\hat{P}$ once translates the function once (infinitesimally), applying it then, again, to the translated function $\hat{P}\psi$ translates it again.
I turn you to Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics chapter 1.6. There is a whole discussion there on momentum operator.
-
$\begingroup$ I don't think you've really addressed the question. What I'm trying to ask concerns the correspondence of quantum-mechanical operators to classical quantities. Given an operator $\hat{p}$ which corresponds to the classical momentum (in the sense I defined in the question), why does $\hat{p} \circ \hat{p}$ correspond to its square? I understand that the eigenvalues of $\hat{p}^2$ are the eigenvalues of $\hat{p}$ squared, but I don't see how this answers the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2014 at 5:42
-
$\begingroup$ So you're basically asking why $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\propto p^2$? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2014 at 5:50
-
$\begingroup$ More precisely, why $\langle p^2 \rangle$ is given by $$ \int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi^* (-ih\,\partial_x)^2 \Psi\,\mathrm{d} x.$$ $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2014 at 5:52
-
$\begingroup$ I added a bit to the answer, basically it's by looking at the momentum as the generator of translations. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2014 at 6:05