0
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $p=-i\hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial x}$ was known, i.e. $\langle x|p=-i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\langle x|$. Suppose the only other known condition was $[x,F(p)]=i\hbar \frac{\partial F(p)}{\partial p}$.(which could be derived from the previous one. )

Then how to derive $\langle p|x=i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial p}\langle p|$ directly?

I tried to complete $\langle p|$ into an operator by $|m\rangle\langle p|$ then apply the commutation relationship $[x,|z\rangle\langle p|] =-i\hbar \frac{\partial |z\rangle\langle p|}{\partial p}$. However, after expanding it, I was not able to get rid of a term $-|z\rangle\langle p|x$, which indicated something wrong.

Is there anyway to derive $\langle p|x=i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial p}\langle p|$ from $[x,F(p)]=i\hbar \frac{\partial F(p)}{\partial p}$?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What makes you think that what you are trying to prove is correct? More precisely the RHS is ill-defined. $\endgroup$ – DanielC Oct 30 at 7:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can't you get from $\langle x | \hat{p} | \psi\rangle = -i\hbar \partial_x \langle x | \psi \rangle$ the form of the eigenfunctions of $\hat{p}$ as plane waves? and then what you are looking for can be just derived by integration by parts? $\endgroup$ – yu-v Oct 30 at 10:10
  • $\begingroup$ Near duplicate. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Oct 30 at 15:21
2
$\begingroup$

Consider $$ \langle p|\hat x |x\rangle = x \langle p |x\rangle =x \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \hbar }} e^{-ipx/\hbar}=i\hbar \partial_p e^{-ipx/\hbar} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \hbar }}= i\hbar \partial_p \langle p |x\rangle , $$ and note it holds for all x.

Can you now sandwich the above between $ | p \rangle $ and $\langle x| $ and integrate over x and p to get the more memorable $$ \bbox[yellow]{\hat x= \int \!\! dp ~~|p\rangle ~i\hbar \partial_p \langle p | } ~~~~~~~? $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Got it. (I got really messed up by not realizing those $x$ and $p$ s were no longer operators after a long night.) But still, It troubles me why we need all those fourier relationships and integral identities, I felt like we should able to derive the expression directly from $[x,F(x)]$, where $[p, F(x)]$ was obvious. It seemed to me that the duality has already been fully characterized, so why can't we just go pass the integral, and get a purly differential solution? $\endgroup$ – ShoutOutAndCalculate Oct 30 at 16:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, the 2nd equation says effectively that, in the momentum space representation, $\hat x $ presents as $i\hbar \partial_p$, so $[i\hbar \partial_p , F(p)]= i\hbar \partial_p F(p)$. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Oct 30 at 16:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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