MHB Calculation of the commutator of the hamiltonian and position

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of the commutator between the Hamiltonian and position operators in quantum mechanics. The author demonstrates that the commutator can be expressed using the canonical commutation relation, specifically showing that [p_j, x_i] = -iħδ_ji. Clarifications are provided regarding the interpretation of position and momentum as operators, emphasizing the importance of recognizing x_i as a multiplication operator in the position basis. The conversation also touches on the subtleties of using different representations in quantum mechanics, such as position and momentum bases. Overall, the exchange highlights the significance of understanding commutation relations in quantum mechanics.
Fantini
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
The book calculates the commutator $[H,x_i]$ as
$$[H,x_i] = \left[ \sum_j \frac{p_j^2}{2m}, x_i \right] = \frac{2}{2m} \sum_j p_j \frac{\hbar}{i} \delta_{ij} = - \frac{i \hbar p_i}{m},$$
where the hamiltonian operator $H$ is
$$H = \sum_j \frac{{\mathbf p}_j^2}{2m_j} + V({\mathbf x}).$$
The book claims to use the property of commutators that
$$[AB,C] = A[B,C] + [A,C]B,$$
but I don't see how that applies.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey Fantini,

The author is using the identity

$$[AB,C] = A[B,C] + [A,C]B$$

to write the commutator $$[p_{j}^{2},x_{i}]$$ in terms of the (negative) canonical commutation relation

$$[p_{j},x_{i}] = -ih\delta_{ji}$$

Do this by taking $$A = B = p_{j}$$ and $$C = x_{i}$$.

Let me know if anything is unclear/not quite right!
 
GJA said:
Hey Fantini,

The author is using the identity

$$[AB,C] = A[B,C] + [A,C]B$$

to write the commutator $$[p_{j}^{2},x_{i}]$$ in terms of the (negative) canonical commutation relation

$$[p_{j},x_{i}] = -ih\delta_{ji}$$

Do this by taking $$A = B = p_{j}$$ and $$C = x_{i}$$.

Let me know if anything is unclear/not quite right!
This is unclear: $$[p_j,x_i] = -i \hbar \delta_{ji}.$$ How do you show this? When I do it by the definition all I get is $$[p_j, x_i] = \frac{\hbar}{i} \left(\delta_{ij} - x_i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \right).$$
 
Hi Again Fantini,

Knowing the canonical commutation relation is essential in Quantum Mechanics, so it's good to understand where it comes from. I'll give two answers - the first is probably what you're looking for, the second is a more "advanced" method (I don't mean more difficult, I just mean it's probably not something you've encountered yet).

1) There are some subtleties to using what you called "the definition" in your computation. In no particular order the following is all going on behind the scenes:

  • In Quantum Mechanics position and momentum are operators.
    • There is a slight error in your computation of the commutator and it stems from not thinking of $$x_{i}$$ as an operator.
  • You are implicitly using what is called the position basis/representation of quantum mechanics when you write $$p_{j} "=" \frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}$$. Furthermore, when working in the position space basis, the operator $$x_{i}$$ is a multiplication operator (it is not simply a real coordinate); essentially $$x_{i}$$ sitting alone is meaningless, what does have meaning is something of the form $$x_{i}f({\bf x})$$, because $$x_{i}$$ is acting as an operator on $$f$$ via multiplication.
    • Note: There is no compulsory need to work in the position basis. In fact, there is something called the momentum basis/representation, and in the momentum basis $$p_{j}\neq \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}$$. I only bring this up to emphasize that you are making a choice when you write $$p_{j} "="\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}$$ (i.e. choosing between position or momentum space).
  • This is how we put what I've mentioned above to work to correct the commutator identity: we take an arbitrary test function $$f({\bf x})$$ and compute
$$\begin{align*}

[p_{j},x_{i}]f &= p_{j}x_{i}f-x_{i}p_{j}f\\
&=\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial(x_{i}f)}{\partial x_{j}}-x_{i}\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{j}}\\
&=\delta_{ij}\frac{h}{i}f+x_{i}\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{j}}-x_{i}\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{j}}\\
&=\frac{h}{i}\delta_{ji}f\end{align*}$$Since $$f$$ was arbitrary, the commutator operator satisfies

$$[p_{j},x_{i}]=-ih\delta_{ji}$$

I could have just said that a product rule was missing from your calculation, but that would not have been any fun :p.

2) The second explanation can be found in most Intermediate Quantum Mechanics texts, and stems from the fact that momentum is what is known as the "generator of space translations."

Let me know if you're still unclear on this.
 
Thank you! It's all clear now. :)
 
GJA said:
Hi Again Fantini,

Knowing the canonical commutation relation is essential in Quantum Mechanics, so it's good to understand where it comes from. I'll give two answers - the first is probably what you're looking for, the second is a more "advanced" method (I don't mean more difficult, I just mean it's probably not something you've encountered yet).

1) There are some subtleties to using what you called "the definition" in your computation. In no particular order the following is all going on behind the scenes:

  • In Quantum Mechanics position and momentum are operators.
    • There is a slight error in your computation of the commutator and it stems from not thinking of $$x_{i}$$ as an operator.
  • You are implicitly using what is called the position basis/representation of quantum mechanics when you write $$p_{j} "=" \frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}$$. Furthermore, when working in the position space basis, the operator $$x_{i}$$ is a multiplication operator (it is not simply a real coordinate); essentially $$x_{i}$$ sitting alone is meaningless, what does have meaning is something of the form $$x_{i}f({\bf x})$$, because $$x_{i}$$ is acting as an operator on $$f$$ via multiplication.
    • Note: There is no compulsory need to work in the position basis. In fact, there is something called the momentum basis/representation, and in the momentum basis $$p_{j}\neq \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}$$. I only bring this up to emphasize that you are making a choice when you write $$p_{j} "="\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}$$ (i.e. choosing between position or momentum space).
  • This is how we put what I've mentioned above to work to correct the commutator identity: we take an arbitrary test function $$f({\bf x})$$ and compute
$$\begin{align*}

[p_{j},x_{i}]f &= p_{j}x_{i}f-x_{i}p_{j}f\\
&=\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial(x_{i}f)}{\partial x_{j}}-x_{i}\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{j}}\\
&=\delta_{ij}\frac{h}{i}f+x_{i}\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{j}}-x_{i}\frac{h}{i}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{j}}\\
&=\frac{h}{i}\delta_{ji}f\end{align*}$$Since $$f$$ was arbitrary, the commutator operator satisfies

$$[p_{j},x_{i}]=-ih\delta_{ji}$$

I could have just said that a product rule was missing from your calculation, but that would not have been any fun :p.

2) The second explanation can be found in most Intermediate Quantum Mechanics texts, and stems from the fact that momentum is what is known as the "generator of space translations."

Let me know if you're still unclear on this.

Normally, I wouldn't clutter up a thread with "useless" posts, but I just have to comment on this post: this is an incredibly lucid, well-thought-out presentation. Excellent work, GJA!
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top