Do Commuting Operators Always Form a Basis in QM and QFT?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wangyi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutation Operator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of commuting operators in quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum field theory (QFT), specifically whether the commutation of two operators implies the commutation of a third operator with respect to the first two. Participants explore the implications of these relationships and provide counterexamples to challenge assumptions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether, given operators A, B, and C where [A,B]=0 and [A,C]=0, it necessarily follows that [B,C]=0.
  • Another participant provides counterexamples from QM and QFT, indicating that [B,C] does not necessarily equal zero, using examples such as position and momentum operators and Dirac gamma matrices.
  • Angular momentum operators are also cited as a counterexample, where [L^2, L_x]=0 and [L^2, L_y]=0, but [L_x, L_y] does not equal zero.
  • It is noted that if operator A has no degeneracy in its eigenvalues, the argument for common eigenstates holds, but degeneracy complicates this relationship.
  • Participants clarify that the existence of common eigenstates for A with B and A with C does not imply that B and C share common eigenstates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the implications of commuting operators and the existence of common eigenstates.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of applying the commutation property in cases of degeneracy and the need for careful consideration of the relationships between operators in QM and QFT.

wangyi
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Hi, I have a question,
As it is said in QM, if two operators commute, they have so many common eigenstates that they form a basis. And the inverse is right.
Now there is the question,
if A,B,C are operators, [A,B]=0, [A,C]=0,
then is "[B,C]=0" also right?

If we simply say A and B, A and C both have common eigenstates, so B and C have common eigenstates, so [B,C]=0, it seems to be right.

But in QFT, if x,y spacelike, then [\phi(x),\phi(y)]=0,
if the above is right, then we can find a point z which is spacelike according to two non-spacelike point x,y to make any non-spacelike [\phi(x),\phi(y)]=0. It looks like a paradox.

thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
> If A,B,C are operators, [A,B]=0, [A,C]=0,
> then is "[B,C]=0" also right?

No, it's not right. For a counterexample in the usual QM variables, let [tex]A=x, B=y, C=p_y[/tex].

For a counterexample in the Dirac gamma matrices,
let [tex]A=\gamma^0, B=\gamma^1\gamma^2, C=\gamma^1\gamma^3[/tex].

For a counterexample in QFT, replace the gamma matrices with your favorite four anticommuting field variables.

In each of these counterexamples, A commutes with B and A commutes with C, but B and C do not commute.

Carl
 
wangyi said:
Now there is the question,
if A,B,C are operators, [A,B]=0, [A,C]=0,
then is "[B,C]=0" also right?

No. The angular momentum operators give a counterexample: A = L^2, B = L_x, and C = L_y. Then [A,B] = [A,C] = 0. But [B,C]= [L_x, L_y] = ih L_z.

It is true, however, that [B, C] commutes with A. This can be seen from the jacobi identity

[A, [B, C]] + [B, [C, A]] + [C, [A, B]] = 0.
 
> If we simply say A and B, A and C both have
> common eigenstates, so B and C have common
> eigenstates, so [B,C]=0, it seems to be right.

If A has no degeneracy in its eigenvalues, then your logic works. In the presence of degeneracy, A can arrange to share a different set of eigenstates with B than it shares with C.

Carl
 
[A,B]=0 means you can find a set of eigenstates common to A and B.
[A,C]=0 means you can find a set of eigenstates common to A and C.

That doesn't imply these two sets are the same, so it will in general not give a set of eigenstates common to B and C.
 
Thank you all, i see :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K