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

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













































































          Popular posts from this blog

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

          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?