Pauli Equation - Simple operator algebra question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around operator algebra in the context of the Pauli Equation, specifically addressing the non-commuting nature of operators in an electromagnetic field. The main question is how to demonstrate that the only significant contribution from the cross product of operators is the term \(\vec{p}\times\vec{A}\). The participant struggles with understanding why the term proportional to \(\vec{A}\times\vec{p}\) does not contribute and seeks clarification on operator priorities and vector calculus. They reference Griffiths' E-M rules to support their reasoning and ultimately confirm the correctness of their derivation. The thread concludes with a correction of a misprint, affirming the accuracy of the derivation presented.
karkas
Messages
131
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I am watching a course on Relativistic Quantum Mechanics to freshen up, and I have found to have some issues regarding simple operator algebra. This particular issue on the Pauli Equation (generalization of the Schrodinger equation that includes spin corrections) in an electromagnetic field, arises from the cross product of a linear combination of operators, as shown below (and in the video link - time 18:18)



I understand that when the operators don't commute, the cross product isn't zero, but how is it shown explicitly that the only non-trivial effect is the \vec{p}\times\vec{A} that survives? What about the other term diagonal in the two operators?

Homework Equations


\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)=\frac{i\hbar e}{c}<br /> \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}

The Attempt at a Solution


I've been arguing why the second term \propto \vec{A}\times\vec{p} won't contribute but can't seem to reach it. Thinking about a crutch function didn't quite help as well. I'm pretty sure this is simple but can't think of it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Seems I've pretty much forgot all of my vector calculus as well as operator priorities. I got the right thing though after some research on my textbooks

Rule 7 on Griffiths E-M: \vec{\nabla}\times\left(f\cdot\vec{A}\right)=f\left(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}\right)-\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{\nabla}\cdot f\right)
Also the priority of operator action starts from the left and encompasses all through to right, so our action should be:
\left[\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\right]g=-\frac{e}{c}\vec{p}\times\left(\vec{A}g\right)-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{p}g\right)=i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\vec{\nabla}\times\left(\vec{A}g\right)+i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{\nabla}g\right)=i\hbar\frac{e}{c}g\left(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}\right)-i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{\nabla}g\right)+i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{\nabla}g\right)=i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\left(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}\right)g

Correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise I think it's done with.
 
If the vector multiplication in the left side of
$$
\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)=\frac{i\hbar e}{c}
\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}
$$
is actually a cross product, then your derivation is correct.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
If the vector multiplication in the left side of
$$
\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)=\frac{i\hbar e}{c}
\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}
$$
is actually a cross product, then your derivation is correct.

Ah, a misprint, will fix, thank you for the confirmation!
 
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