So I've become rusty in Quantum Mechanics. What is $\langle x_1 |V(\hat x)| x_2 \rangle$? Where $V$ is the potential and $|x \rangle$ is the postion eigenket? $$ \langle x_1 |\hat V(\hat x)| x_2 \rangle = ? $$

Is it with $V(x_1) \delta(x_1 -x_2)$ but since the position operator can also act on a bra is it $V(x_2) \delta(x_1 -x_2)$ or some combination of $x_1$, $x_2$ like $V(x_1,x_2) \delta(x_1 -x_2)$? If it does not make any difference can you prove so? ( I was doing a calculation where it seemed to make a difference).


Calculation where is matters

The following is a snippet of what I was doing.

Let the Hamiltonian $\hat H$ of the particle be:

\begin{equation} \hat H = \hat T + \hat V \end{equation}

where $\hat T$ is the kinetic energy and $\hat V$ is the potential energy. Now, to find the velocity:

\begin{equation} \hat v = \frac{-i}{\hbar}[\hat H , \hat x] = \frac{-i}{\hbar} [ \hat T , \hat x] = \hat T'(\hat p) \end{equation}

where $\hat T'(\hat p)$ is the velocity which is a function of momentum. Now, if we further assume $T'(p)$ is of degree $1$ and find the acceleration $\hat a$:

\begin{equation} \hat a = \frac{-i}{\hbar} [ \hat H , \hat T'(\hat p) ] =\frac{-i}{\hbar} [\hat V,\hat T'( \hat p )] = \hat a (\hat x) \end{equation}

We know that acceleration must be a function of $\hat x$ since we have already assumed $T'(p)$ is of degree $1$ and find the acceleration $\hat a$. Hence,

\begin{equation} [\hat a, \hat x] = 0 \end{equation}

Now, multiplying $| x \rangle$ on the $\hat a$ equation:

\begin{equation} \langle x ' | \hat a | x \rangle = \langle x ' | [\hat V,\hat T'( \hat p )] | x \rangle \end{equation}

Using the eigenvalue equation with eigenvalue $a$ (which represents the acceleration at a position $| x \rangle $ ):

\begin{equation} a \langle x ' | x \rangle= a \delta( x' - x) = \frac{-i}{\hbar} \langle x ' | (\hat V \hat T'( \hat p ) - \hat T'( \hat p ) \hat V) | x \rangle = \frac{-i}{\hbar} (V(x') - V(x)) \langle x' | \hat T'( \hat p ) | x \rangle \end{equation}

Dividing both:

\begin{equation} \frac{i \hbar a}{(V(x') - V(x)) } \delta( x' - x) = \langle x' | \hat T'( \hat p ) | x \rangle \end{equation}

Let us consider $\langle x' | \hat T'( \hat p ) | \psi \rangle$:

\begin{equation} \langle x' | \hat T'( \hat p ) | \psi \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \langle x' | \hat T'( \hat p ) | x \rangle \langle x| \psi \rangle dx = \int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{i \hbar a}{(V(x') - V(x)) } \delta( x' - x) \psi(x)dx \end{equation}


\begin{equation} \langle x' | \hat v | \psi \rangle = \int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{i \hbar a}{(V(x') - V(x)) } \delta( x' - x) \psi(x) dx \end{equation}

Due to the quantization condition of position and momentum:

\begin{equation} \frac{- i \hbar}{m }\frac{\partial }{ \partial x'} \psi (x') = \int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{ a i \hbar}{(V(x') - V(x)) } \delta( x' - x) \psi(x) dx \end{equation}


\begin{equation} \frac{\partial }{ \partial x'} \psi (x') = \int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{ - m a }{(V(x') - V(x)) } \delta( x' - x) \psi(x) dx \end{equation}

Let us now try $V(x) = - G \frac{m M}{x}$ (point particle potential):

\begin{equation} \frac{\partial }{ \partial x '} \psi (x') = \int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{- a}{(-\frac{GM}{x'} + \frac{GM}{x}) } \delta( x' - x) \psi(x) dx \end{equation}


\begin{equation} GM \frac{\partial }{ \partial x '} \psi (x') = \int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{ a x x'}{(x' - x) } \delta( x' - x) \psi(x) dx \end{equation}

Again Taylor expanding around $\psi (x)$ around $x'$:

\begin{equation} GM \frac{\partial }{ \partial x '} \psi (x') = \int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{ a x x'}{(x' - x) } \delta( x' - x) (\psi(x') + (x-x') \partial_{x'} \psi(x') + \dots) dx \end{equation}

Plugging in the ansatz $a = - \frac{GM}{x x'}$ we get:

\begin{equation} GM \frac{\partial }{ \partial x '} \psi (x') = \int_{- \infty}^\infty - \frac{ GM}{(x' - x) } \delta( x' - x) (\psi(x') + (x-x') \partial_{x'} \psi(x') + \dots) dx \end{equation}

Note the term $\int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{ GM}{(x' - x) } \delta( x' - x) \psi(x') $ goes to $0$ since is antisymmetric.

\begin{equation} GM \frac{\partial }{ \partial x '} \psi (x') = GM \frac{\partial }{ \partial x '} \psi (x') \end{equation}

Hence, we get a consist solution which agrees with classical calculations. Note: $a = - GM{x^{-2}}$ or $a = - GM{x'^{-2}}$ both will give wrong answers.

  • $\begingroup$ I'd be very interested to see a calculation where it makes a difference... $\endgroup$
    – Philip
    Nov 15, 2020 at 8:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Philip I've included the calculation. $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2020 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ @All Everything is correct except the last line's claim which states note: $a = - GM{x^{-2}}$ or $a = - GM{x'^{-2}}$ both will give wrong answers.... $\endgroup$ Nov 16, 2020 at 4:59

3 Answers 3


I'm not very good at the rigorous math, but the way I think about it is that "functions" like the Dirac Delta are actually distributions, meaning that they only make sense inside of an integral of the form:

$$\int_{a}^b \text{d}x\,\,f(x)\delta(x),$$

where $f(x)$ is a well-behaved (smooth, with a compact support over the interval, etc.) test function.

The quantity that you are talking about is also a distribution (it's just the product of the delta-function with the potential) and so it too must be defined in a similar way. However, it's pretty easy to show that:

$$\int_{a}^b \text{d}x_1\,\,f(x_1) V(x_1)\delta(x_1 -x_2) = \int_{a}^b\text{d}x_2\,\, f(x_2) V(x_2)\delta(x_1-x_2),$$

using a simple substitution of variables. As a result, both your answers are essentially equal, in the sense that their distributions are equal.

As to your example, there are many assumptions there that might be justified, but which I don't quite understand. However, there are some steps that I am uncomfortable with: for example, consider the step where you divide by $V(x')-V(x)$. The term on the left hand side is proportional to: $$\frac{\delta(x'-x)}{V(x')-V(x)},$$ and I suspect there are many problems with this. For starters, you will be dividing by zero when $V(x')=V(x)$, and more importantly, you cannot multiply distributions by singular functions, as the result would not be a well defined distribution.

  • $\begingroup$ They do a similar derivation in Quantum Optics in Phase Space by Wolfgang P.Schleich page 38 section 2.1.2 ... I can share a screenshot (of the book) on chat if you like? $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2020 at 8:48
  • $\begingroup$ I've got the book somewhere, let me take a look. But it's possible that it's beyond my pay-grade! :) $\endgroup$
    – Philip
    Nov 15, 2020 at 8:50
  • $\begingroup$ I uploaded a screenshot on the chat just incase you don't find it ;) $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2020 at 8:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, I must admit that they do do exactly what I say shouldn't be done. In fact, they seem to claim that $$\frac{\delta(x-x')}{x-x'}= \delta'(x-x')$$ which I really have a problem with. Now that I think about it, I feel like I have answered another question on PSE about this exact section of this book, let me see if I can find it... $\endgroup$
    – Philip
    Nov 15, 2020 at 8:55

You can think of it in the sense of distributions, and then Philip's answer applies, in the sense that, as distributions

$$ f(x)\delta(x-y)=f(y)\delta(x-y)$$

but more intuitively, you can also think of $\delta(x-y)$ as having support only on $x=y$ meaning that it is equal to $0$ for all $x\neq y$ (this is not mathematically rigorous, but it works on an intuitive level), so the only point where $V(x_1)\delta(x_1-x_2)$ does not vanish is $x_1=x_2$, so you can put either of them in the potential. In fact you can think of

$$ V(x_1)\delta(x_1-x_2)=V(x_2)\delta(x_1-x_2)$$

as the continuous equivalent of

$$ \delta_{ij} V_j=\delta_{ij}V_i$$

where $\delta_{ij}=1$ if $i=j$ and $0$ otherwise and $V$ is a vector. It doesn't matter whether you take $V_i$ or $V_j$, since in all cases where the above expression is not $0=0$, $i=j$.

  • $\begingroup$ The why doesn't that apply to the section: "Calculation where is matters"? Can you include that in your answer as well? $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2020 at 9:13
  • $\begingroup$ @MoreAnonymous sorry, I'm not sure I'm following the calculation, where does the ansatz of $a$ come from? How do you get $a$ from $V$? $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2020 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ The ansatz came from first trying $a = G\frac{m}{x_1 ^2}$ and then $a = G\frac{m}{x_2 ^2}$ both the equations give inconsistent answers but it must agree with classical calculations ... Basically you want something of the sort $a \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} = \frac{V'(x)}{m} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}$. $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2020 at 9:46
  • $\begingroup$ Let us experiment with the potential $V = -mgx$ (flat earth potential): $ \frac{\partial }{ \partial x '} \psi (x') = \int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{- a}{(-gx' + gx) } \delta( x' - x) \psi(x) dx $ Taylor expanding $\psi(x)$ around $x'$ and simplifying $ \frac{\partial }{ \partial x '} \psi (x') =\frac{a}{g} \int_{- \infty}^\infty \frac{1}{( x - x') } \delta( x' - x)( \psi(x') + (x -x') \partial_{x'} \psi(x') + \dots) dx$ $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2020 at 9:46
  • $\begingroup$ Hence, cancelling the wave-function: $ a=g $ The idea is to make the quantum case also abide with classical calculations of the calculated acceleration would be. $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2020 at 9:48

To add on to the other answers, if $V(x)$ is function of a real variable, then $\hat{V}$ really means

$$ \hat{V} = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} V(x) | x \rangle \langle x | \mathrm{d} x $$

where $| x \rangle$ is the same position eigenket as your definition $$ \hat{x} | x \rangle = x | x \rangle $$

You can verify that $$ \hat{V} |x \rangle = V(x) |x \rangle $$

And so yes, the answer to your first question is \begin{align} \langle x_1 | \hat{V} |x_2 \rangle = V(x_2) \langle x_1 |x_2 \rangle &= V(x_2) \delta(x_2 - x_1) \\ &= V(x_1) \delta(x_2 - x_1) \end{align}


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.