Commuting Operators: When 2 Operators Don't Commute

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fe-56
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of commuting operators in quantum mechanics, specifically operators A, B, and C, where A commutes with both B and C, but B and C do not commute with each other. It is explained that when two operators commute, they share the same basis in Hilbert space, allowing their eigenstates to be expressed as linear combinations of one another. The confusion arises regarding the implications of non-commuting operators, which indicates that their eigenstates cannot be expressed in the same way. The conversation highlights that degeneracy in eigenstates of A allows B and C to share a common basis with A, despite not commuting with each other. The discussion concludes with a confirmation that degeneracy is indeed a crucial factor in this scenario.
Fe-56
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
hello...this might look very stupid but I am totally confused...

Let have operators A, B, C. Let [A,B]=[A,C]=0 and [B,C] not 0...

When two operators commute, they have the same base in (Hilbert) space.
So base in A representation is the same as in the B representation and also
the basis in A and C representations are the same.

But if B and C do not commute, their basis are different.



There has to be a fatal error in here:))
thanx:-p
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fe-56 said:
hello...this might look very stupid but I am totally confused...

Let have operators A, B, C. Let [A,B]=[A,C]=0 and [B,C] not 0...

When two operators commute, they have the same base in (Hilbert) space.
So base in A representation is the same as in the B representation and also
the basis in A and C representations are the same.

But if B and C do not commute, their basis are different.



There has to be a fatal error in here:))
thanx:-p

As far as I know, this happens only when there is degeneracy.

Let's say that the eigenstates of A are degenerate. Then if [A,B]=0, it means that the eigenstates of B can be written as some linear combination of the eigenstates of A. If [A,C]= 0, the same thing applies for the eigenstates of C (they can be written as a linear combination of the eigenstates of A).

Consider a set of eigenstates of A all corresponding to the same eigenvalue of A, say A \psi_n(x) = a \psi(x) . Then it will be possible to write some of the eigenstates of B (corresponding possibly to different eigenvalues of B) as some linear combinations of these \psi_n(x). And it will be possible to write some of the eigenstates of C as a different linear combination of the eigenstates of A (still corresponding to the same degenerate eigenvalue a). So A and B share a common set of basis states, A and C share a common basis of states but B and C don't.

An exception is if there is a state for which applying A, B or C all gives zero. Then all three operators may share the same eigenstate even if they don't all commute.


This is what happens, say, with {\vec L}^2 and L_x and L_z for example. We have [ {\vec L}^2,L_x] = [{\vec L}^2,L_z]=0 but [L_x,L_y] \neq 0 .
 
Last edited:
:!)

YES, that's it! :!)

so...there must be degeneracy in all eigenvalues of A, yes?

thankx a lot...



...and this was not any homework, someone replaced it from QT:))
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top