Why does the position uncertainty of a harmonic oscillator not have the expectation value squared term?

Multi tool use
Multi tool use

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












My question is about the derivation for the uncertainty of a quantum harmonic oscillator in the non-zero ground state energy. In my textbook A modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics by John S. Townsend there is a discussion about the position uncertainty $(Delta x)^2= big<x^2 big>+big<xbig>^2$ for a harmonic oscillator in the ground state energy.



We have established for a harmonic oscillator
$hat x=sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)$ so $big<xbig>=big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>$ which gives us $big<x^2big>=big<nbig|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|nbig>$.
And in a similar fashion $big<xbig>^2=big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>^2$.



To me this means that $(Delta x)^2=big<nbig|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|nbig> + big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>^2$. However, the book seems to drop (with no explanation) $big<xbig>^2$ and comes up with $(Delta x)^2=big<0big|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|0big>$. I know we are talking about ground state so I'm assuming that's why the $n$ was replaced with $0$, however as far as I can tell we just have $big<x^2big>$. Why is the other term dropped? Is this something to do with the oscillator being in the ground state?










share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    My question is about the derivation for the uncertainty of a quantum harmonic oscillator in the non-zero ground state energy. In my textbook A modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics by John S. Townsend there is a discussion about the position uncertainty $(Delta x)^2= big<x^2 big>+big<xbig>^2$ for a harmonic oscillator in the ground state energy.



    We have established for a harmonic oscillator
    $hat x=sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)$ so $big<xbig>=big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>$ which gives us $big<x^2big>=big<nbig|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|nbig>$.
    And in a similar fashion $big<xbig>^2=big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>^2$.



    To me this means that $(Delta x)^2=big<nbig|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|nbig> + big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>^2$. However, the book seems to drop (with no explanation) $big<xbig>^2$ and comes up with $(Delta x)^2=big<0big|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|0big>$. I know we are talking about ground state so I'm assuming that's why the $n$ was replaced with $0$, however as far as I can tell we just have $big<x^2big>$. Why is the other term dropped? Is this something to do with the oscillator being in the ground state?










    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      My question is about the derivation for the uncertainty of a quantum harmonic oscillator in the non-zero ground state energy. In my textbook A modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics by John S. Townsend there is a discussion about the position uncertainty $(Delta x)^2= big<x^2 big>+big<xbig>^2$ for a harmonic oscillator in the ground state energy.



      We have established for a harmonic oscillator
      $hat x=sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)$ so $big<xbig>=big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>$ which gives us $big<x^2big>=big<nbig|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|nbig>$.
      And in a similar fashion $big<xbig>^2=big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>^2$.



      To me this means that $(Delta x)^2=big<nbig|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|nbig> + big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>^2$. However, the book seems to drop (with no explanation) $big<xbig>^2$ and comes up with $(Delta x)^2=big<0big|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|0big>$. I know we are talking about ground state so I'm assuming that's why the $n$ was replaced with $0$, however as far as I can tell we just have $big<x^2big>$. Why is the other term dropped? Is this something to do with the oscillator being in the ground state?










      share|cite|improve this question













      My question is about the derivation for the uncertainty of a quantum harmonic oscillator in the non-zero ground state energy. In my textbook A modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics by John S. Townsend there is a discussion about the position uncertainty $(Delta x)^2= big<x^2 big>+big<xbig>^2$ for a harmonic oscillator in the ground state energy.



      We have established for a harmonic oscillator
      $hat x=sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)$ so $big<xbig>=big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>$ which gives us $big<x^2big>=big<nbig|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|nbig>$.
      And in a similar fashion $big<xbig>^2=big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>^2$.



      To me this means that $(Delta x)^2=big<nbig|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|nbig> + big<n big|sqrt hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger) big|nbig>^2$. However, the book seems to drop (with no explanation) $big<xbig>^2$ and comes up with $(Delta x)^2=big<0big|hbarover 2momega(hat a+hat a^dagger)^2big|0big>$. I know we are talking about ground state so I'm assuming that's why the $n$ was replaced with $0$, however as far as I can tell we just have $big<x^2big>$. Why is the other term dropped? Is this something to do with the oscillator being in the ground state?







      quantum-mechanics harmonic-oscillator






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 hours ago









      matryoshka

      284316




      284316




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted










          ::chuckles::



          I remember being baffled by how this works out mathematically myself, and it's one of those "I can't believe it's that simple!" ones.



          Three facts:




          • $hata$ and $hata^dagger$ are the lowering and raising ladder operators: they take a numbered state to one numbered either one less or one more that the starting state.

          • The numbered states are a set of eigenstates, so they are orthogonal to one another.

          • Expand $left( hata + hata^dagger right)^2$, and see why it has a very different character than $left( hata + hata^dagger right)$.





          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • I just expanded them and I see exactly what you mean, I need to be more careful about how I use operators. Looking at this I can't see any way $<x>^2$ would ever contribute to the uncertainty, no matter what energy state it is in because of the lowering and raising ladder operations. Is that the case?
            – matryoshka
            1 hour ago






          • 1




            Yup. Or at least, "Yup for the harmonic oscillator". The situation where $hatx$ is composed of a sum of simple raising and lowering operators is special to the SHO.
            – dmckee♦
            1 hour ago










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f434348%2fwhy-does-the-position-uncertainty-of-a-harmonic-oscillator-not-have-the-expectat%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted










          ::chuckles::



          I remember being baffled by how this works out mathematically myself, and it's one of those "I can't believe it's that simple!" ones.



          Three facts:




          • $hata$ and $hata^dagger$ are the lowering and raising ladder operators: they take a numbered state to one numbered either one less or one more that the starting state.

          • The numbered states are a set of eigenstates, so they are orthogonal to one another.

          • Expand $left( hata + hata^dagger right)^2$, and see why it has a very different character than $left( hata + hata^dagger right)$.





          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • I just expanded them and I see exactly what you mean, I need to be more careful about how I use operators. Looking at this I can't see any way $<x>^2$ would ever contribute to the uncertainty, no matter what energy state it is in because of the lowering and raising ladder operations. Is that the case?
            – matryoshka
            1 hour ago






          • 1




            Yup. Or at least, "Yup for the harmonic oscillator". The situation where $hatx$ is composed of a sum of simple raising and lowering operators is special to the SHO.
            – dmckee♦
            1 hour ago














          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted










          ::chuckles::



          I remember being baffled by how this works out mathematically myself, and it's one of those "I can't believe it's that simple!" ones.



          Three facts:




          • $hata$ and $hata^dagger$ are the lowering and raising ladder operators: they take a numbered state to one numbered either one less or one more that the starting state.

          • The numbered states are a set of eigenstates, so they are orthogonal to one another.

          • Expand $left( hata + hata^dagger right)^2$, and see why it has a very different character than $left( hata + hata^dagger right)$.





          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • I just expanded them and I see exactly what you mean, I need to be more careful about how I use operators. Looking at this I can't see any way $<x>^2$ would ever contribute to the uncertainty, no matter what energy state it is in because of the lowering and raising ladder operations. Is that the case?
            – matryoshka
            1 hour ago






          • 1




            Yup. Or at least, "Yup for the harmonic oscillator". The situation where $hatx$ is composed of a sum of simple raising and lowering operators is special to the SHO.
            – dmckee♦
            1 hour ago












          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted






          ::chuckles::



          I remember being baffled by how this works out mathematically myself, and it's one of those "I can't believe it's that simple!" ones.



          Three facts:




          • $hata$ and $hata^dagger$ are the lowering and raising ladder operators: they take a numbered state to one numbered either one less or one more that the starting state.

          • The numbered states are a set of eigenstates, so they are orthogonal to one another.

          • Expand $left( hata + hata^dagger right)^2$, and see why it has a very different character than $left( hata + hata^dagger right)$.





          share|cite|improve this answer














          ::chuckles::



          I remember being baffled by how this works out mathematically myself, and it's one of those "I can't believe it's that simple!" ones.



          Three facts:




          • $hata$ and $hata^dagger$ are the lowering and raising ladder operators: they take a numbered state to one numbered either one less or one more that the starting state.

          • The numbered states are a set of eigenstates, so they are orthogonal to one another.

          • Expand $left( hata + hata^dagger right)^2$, and see why it has a very different character than $left( hata + hata^dagger right)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 1 hour ago

























          answered 1 hour ago









          dmckee♦

          72.9k6128260




          72.9k6128260











          • I just expanded them and I see exactly what you mean, I need to be more careful about how I use operators. Looking at this I can't see any way $<x>^2$ would ever contribute to the uncertainty, no matter what energy state it is in because of the lowering and raising ladder operations. Is that the case?
            – matryoshka
            1 hour ago






          • 1




            Yup. Or at least, "Yup for the harmonic oscillator". The situation where $hatx$ is composed of a sum of simple raising and lowering operators is special to the SHO.
            – dmckee♦
            1 hour ago
















          • I just expanded them and I see exactly what you mean, I need to be more careful about how I use operators. Looking at this I can't see any way $<x>^2$ would ever contribute to the uncertainty, no matter what energy state it is in because of the lowering and raising ladder operations. Is that the case?
            – matryoshka
            1 hour ago






          • 1




            Yup. Or at least, "Yup for the harmonic oscillator". The situation where $hatx$ is composed of a sum of simple raising and lowering operators is special to the SHO.
            – dmckee♦
            1 hour ago















          I just expanded them and I see exactly what you mean, I need to be more careful about how I use operators. Looking at this I can't see any way $<x>^2$ would ever contribute to the uncertainty, no matter what energy state it is in because of the lowering and raising ladder operations. Is that the case?
          – matryoshka
          1 hour ago




          I just expanded them and I see exactly what you mean, I need to be more careful about how I use operators. Looking at this I can't see any way $<x>^2$ would ever contribute to the uncertainty, no matter what energy state it is in because of the lowering and raising ladder operations. Is that the case?
          – matryoshka
          1 hour ago




          1




          1




          Yup. Or at least, "Yup for the harmonic oscillator". The situation where $hatx$ is composed of a sum of simple raising and lowering operators is special to the SHO.
          – dmckee♦
          1 hour ago




          Yup. Or at least, "Yup for the harmonic oscillator". The situation where $hatx$ is composed of a sum of simple raising and lowering operators is special to the SHO.
          – dmckee♦
          1 hour ago

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f434348%2fwhy-does-the-position-uncertainty-of-a-harmonic-oscillator-not-have-the-expectat%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          rBxp,U4TCMvdhpE,RRq,X,XpQBP5uE,qPcl2yTuZHdd,3nSm31JzeD j3ePPYj24z xrfK0 Q0Q m,LLqyU
          gPPdmHvL60yGaPw,EGaP4e4GWXDhl,C,EmTm11Yrga0S jOdkxRZl sPUE6Y3KbHD jjT2b4mU KAx7NhP qc1,wko

          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?

          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS