- #1
- 13,356
- 3,364
One of my dilemmas about <standard> quantum mechanics is spelled out in the sequel:
If the position and momentum observables of a single-particle quantum system in 3D are described by the self-adjoint linear operators Q_i and P_i on a seperable Hilbert space [itex] \mathcal{H} [/itex] subject to the commutation relations of Weyl
[tex] [\exp(iP_{j}u_{j}),\exp(iP_{k}u_{k})]=0 [/tex] (1)
[tex] [\exp(iQ_{j}v_{j}),\exp(iQ_{k}v_{k})]=0 [/tex] (2)
[tex] \exp(iP_{j}u_{j})\exp(iQ_{k}v_{k})=\exp(i\hbar \delta_{jk} u_{j}v_{k}) \exp(iQ_{k}v_{k})\exp(iP_{j}u_{j}). [/tex] (3)
[tex] u_j, v_k \in \mathbb{R}, i,j,k = 1,2,3. [/tex]
, then they obey the commutation relations of Born and Jordan
[tex] [P_{j},P_{k}] = 0 (4) [/tex]
[tex] [Q_{j},Q_{k}] = 0 (5) [/tex]
[tex] [Q_{j},P_{k}] = i\hbar \delta_{jk} 1 (6) [/tex]
By a generalization of the theorem 6.3, page 340 of Ed. Prugovecki's <Quantum Mechanics in Hilbert Space>, one can prove the statement above: (1-3) imply (4-6). What bothers me is that I have not seen a clear explanation (hence the dilemma) as to why (4-6) DO NOT imply (1-3).
Any ideas/references ?
If the position and momentum observables of a single-particle quantum system in 3D are described by the self-adjoint linear operators Q_i and P_i on a seperable Hilbert space [itex] \mathcal{H} [/itex] subject to the commutation relations of Weyl
[tex] [\exp(iP_{j}u_{j}),\exp(iP_{k}u_{k})]=0 [/tex] (1)
[tex] [\exp(iQ_{j}v_{j}),\exp(iQ_{k}v_{k})]=0 [/tex] (2)
[tex] \exp(iP_{j}u_{j})\exp(iQ_{k}v_{k})=\exp(i\hbar \delta_{jk} u_{j}v_{k}) \exp(iQ_{k}v_{k})\exp(iP_{j}u_{j}). [/tex] (3)
[tex] u_j, v_k \in \mathbb{R}, i,j,k = 1,2,3. [/tex]
, then they obey the commutation relations of Born and Jordan
[tex] [P_{j},P_{k}] = 0 (4) [/tex]
[tex] [Q_{j},Q_{k}] = 0 (5) [/tex]
[tex] [Q_{j},P_{k}] = i\hbar \delta_{jk} 1 (6) [/tex]
By a generalization of the theorem 6.3, page 340 of Ed. Prugovecki's <Quantum Mechanics in Hilbert Space>, one can prove the statement above: (1-3) imply (4-6). What bothers me is that I have not seen a clear explanation (hence the dilemma) as to why (4-6) DO NOT imply (1-3).
Any ideas/references ?
Last edited: