Solving [L_z,p^2] = 0: Step-by-Step Guide

  • Thread starter Thread starter bdforbes
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the commutator [L_z, p^2] in quantum mechanics, specifically exploring the implications of angular momentum operators and momentum squared operators.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various steps taken to compute the commutator, including expanding it into components and applying known commutation relations. Questions arise regarding the definitions of momentum operators and the validity of certain steps in the calculations.

Discussion Status

There is active engagement with participants offering different perspectives on the calculations. Some have provided insights into the use of commutation relations, while others are questioning the correctness of specific steps and assumptions made during the process.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating potential confusion regarding the definitions of momentum operators and the specific terms involved in the commutator. There is also mention of network issues affecting participation.

bdforbes
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
I think [L_z,p^2] is supposed to equal zero, but when I'm getting

= x*(p_y)*(p_x)^2 - y*(p_x)*(p_y)^2

and that doesn't appear to equal zero. Could someone please show a couple steps to help me out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What method have you used? You want to calculate the commutator [itex][L_z,p^2]=[xp_y-yp_x,p^2][/tex]. You need to expand this and then simplify.[/itex]
 
isn't p stands for something like
[tex]p_x = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}[/tex]
?
 
These are the steps I used:

[itex][L_z,p^2]=[L_z,p_x^2+p_y^2+p_z^2][/itex]
[itex]= [L_z,p_x^2]+[L_z,p_y^2][/itex]
[itex]= [xp_y,p_x^2]-[yp_x,p_x^2]+[xp_y,p_y^2]-[yp_x,p_y^2][/itex]
[itex]= p_y x p_x^2-p_x y p_y^2[/itex]
 
note:
[tex]\left[x_i,p_j\right]= i\hbar \delta_{ij}[/tex]
look what you have done..
 
mjsd said:
isn't p stands for something like
[tex]p_x = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}[/tex]
?

No, [tex]p=\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2+p_z^2}[/tex]; but the OP seems to have got this part.
 
mjsd said:
note:
[tex]\left[x_i,p_j\right]= i\hbar \delta_{ij}[/tex]
look what you have done..

I've used that result to eliminate some terms, but I can't see how it would eliminate the other terms. I could use it to permute the factors of the final terms I have, but that isn't too useful.
 
sorry had some network problems...
are you sure it is p^2 not L^2?
 
bdforbes said:
These are the steps I used:

[tex][L_z,p^2]=[L_z,p_x^2+p_y^2+p_z^2][/tex]
[tex]= [L_z,p_x^2]+[L_z,p_y^2][/tex]
[tex]= [xp_y,p_x^2]-[yp_x,p_x^2]+[xp_y,p_y^2]-[yp_x,p_y^2][/tex]

This is correct, and the 2nd and 3rd terms are zero. But in the 1st term, we can pull out the p_y (because it commutes with everything else), and similarly the p_x in the 4th term; then we have

[tex]= p_y[x,p_x^2]-p_x[y,p_y^2][/tex]

Then you need to evaluate the remaining commutators using

[tex][A,BC]=[A,B]C + B[A,C][/tex]
 
  • #10
Thank you, that identity did the trick. That means that

[itex]p_y x p_x^2 = p_x y p_y^2[/itex]

but they don't look equal to me! Is there any way other than using the commutators that you could prove the above equality?
 
  • #11
How did you get that? It's not correct. Did you compute the commutator of x and px^2? What did you get?
 
  • #12
[itex][x,p_x^2]=x p_x^2 - p_x^2 x = x p_x^2[/itex]

Oh wait I see what I did wrong! I eliminated the second term because I was hitting x with [itex]p_x^2[/itex], but I forgot that these are operators acting on an unknown function, so it's more like [itex]p_x^2 ( xf )[/itex].
Thanks for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K