Register to reply

On operator commutation

by wangyi
Tags: commutation, operator
Share this thread:
wangyi
#1
May17-05, 12:07 AM
P: 56
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!
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Detecting neutrinos, physicists look into the heart of the Sun
Measurement at Big Bang conditions confirms lithium problem
Researchers study gallium to design adjustable electronic components
CarlB
#2
May17-05, 01:48 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
CarlB's Avatar
P: 1,204
> 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
PhilG
#3
May17-05, 01:50 AM
P: 53
Quote Quote by wangyi
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.

CarlB
#4
May17-05, 01:56 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
CarlB's Avatar
P: 1,204
On operator commutation

> 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
Galileo
#5
May17-05, 04:24 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Galileo's Avatar
P: 2,002
[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.
wangyi
#6
May17-05, 06:08 AM
P: 56
Thank you all, i see :)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Lim inf and product commutation Calculus 1
Commutation property Linear & Abstract Algebra 9
Commutation of operator Advanced Physics Homework 1
Commutation Relation General Physics 0
Commutation relation Quantum Physics 10