last day (17 days later) » 

7:28 AM
0
A: How do we know that the Fourier transform of space is momentum?

bdforbesA Fourier transform is the decomposition of a position space function into a basis of plane waves, each of which has a well defined momentum. $$ f(x) \sim \int \text{d}p\; F(p) e^{\text{i}px} $$ This relies on the quantum mechanical idea that waves can have a well defined momentum.

 
It's makes the statement of the question changed and doesn't answer the why and how!
 
The Fourier transform is a well defined mathematical operation. Transforming basis from position to momentum in wave mechanics has the same form as a Fourier transform.
 
why not the position and something else? what makes them to be conjugate?
 
I think there's something really deep behind that because position and momentum appear as conjugate variables in many situations. But at the very least, it has to be that way given the axioms of quantum mechanics.
Maybe one insight is that a plane wave (which you could consider a basic building block of a wave mechanical theory) has momentum and position in a conjugate relationship i.e. $e^{ipx}$.
Actually you should consider exp(ikx). Then connect wave number and momentum using quantum mechanics.
 
why should it have the position and momentum in it's building block? that's a restating again!?!
 
7:28 AM
There's a lot of empirical evidence motivating the ideas of wave mechanics. In the end, our physical theories are motivated by the empirical evidence we have experience with.
I suspect you're trying to find an answer to an ill-posed question...
I think the fundamental question here is why we can identify momentum with spatial frequency.
 
then as you say:" why we can identify momentum with spatial frequency"?
 
I think I can explain that.
Start with Maxwell's equations. They produce a wave equation, whose free-space solutions include plane waves of the form exp(2pi i k x).
The wavenumber k is related to the wavelength by k = 1/lambda.
A feature of these equations is that they only have the correct transformation properties under Lorentz transformations.
We can also arrive at Lorentz transformations by a consideration of achieving a reasonably causal theory.
It is fairly easy to get from there to the relativistic energy momentum equation:
E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4
Light is massless and so obeys E = p*c
From the photoelectric effect we have E = hbar*omega
Or even better E = hf
We know c = f*lambda
And so lambda = h / p
de Broglie proposed that this equation also makes sense for matter
This is essentially the basis for wave mechanics
 
you know:
 
We can now write plane waves as exp(ipx/hbar)
 
we have the mathematical process of fourier transforms
 
7:35 AM
And we see that p is related to k
k is spatial frequency
so momentum is essentially spatial frequency
 
you first chosen it to be
you first chosen it to be
 
"The terms "momentum" (symbol p, also a vector) and "wavevector" are used interchangeably due to the De Broglie relation p = ħk, meaning they are equivalent up to proportionality"
 
it says: "The momentum representation of a wave function is very closely related to the Fourier transform and the concept of frequency domain. Since a quantum mechanical particle has a frequency proportional to the momentum (de Broglie's equation given above)
, describing the particle as a sum of its momentum components is equivalent to describing it as a sum of frequency components (i.e. a Fourier transform).[3] This becomes clear when we ask ourselves how we can transform from one representation to another."
 
Yes that's a great quote!
That's at the heart of it
Fourier transform transforms a function to the basis of spatial frequencies
Wave mechanics shows that momentum is proportional to spatial frequency
 
I'm affraid if it's not a complete answer and it's a weak justification
 
7:40 AM
It's not rigorous by any means
 
Ok, somehow it's good
 
de Broglie's hypothesis is essentially axiomatic
But it is well motivated but empirical observations and the structure of successful physical theories!
 
yes, ofcourse
 
*motivated by
 
my problem is not the de Broglie hypothesis, it relates the p to k. fourier transform relates xto these two.
relates x to these two (p,k)
 
7:44 AM
Yes?
 
wrong?
 
Sounds right
Is it still non-intuitive?
 
no way.
then we should accept the de broglie hypothesis and make a watery relation to use the fourier transform. yes?
 
Once you accept the de Broglie hypothesis and then construct the Schrodinger equation, I don't think it's watery.
The Schrodinger equation admits solutions lying in a Hilbert space
 
thanks bdforbes. it really helps though.
I should go now, we can continue in future if you like it?
 
7:49 AM
Yes certainly, very stimulating!
 
thanks. see you later. bye
 
bye
 

  last day (17 days later) »