What is physical meaning of anticommuting, not anticommuting operators

Roman
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
hello everyone,

while studying QM you learn the physical meaning of commutating operators, namely they have simultaneous eigenstates. For observables it means, that they can be simultaneusly exactly mesured.

What is the physical meaning of anticommuting and not anticommuting operators? [A,B]_+=0, [A,B]_+\not=0
Is there any physical meaning or is it just a mathematical tool?

(sorry for my bad english)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Roman said:
hello everyone,

while studying QM you learn the physical meaning of commutating operators, namely they have simultaneous eigenstates. For observables it means, that they can be simultaneusly exactly mesured.

Where did you get that ? That's incorrect.


Roman said:
What is the physical meaning of anticommuting and not anticommuting operators? [A,B]_+=0, [A,B]_+\not=0
Is there any physical meaning or is it just a mathematical tool?

The issues with anticommutators pertain to quantum field theory and they are the convenient mathematical tool which is necessary for the theory of fermionic fields to be valid.

Daniel.
 
why isn't that correct? for example [L_i,L_j]_-\not=0 means that you can't exactly measure two components of angular momentum at the same time, the same for [x_i,p_i]_-\not=0.
can you find a counter-example?

so it is just a mathematical tool?
 
The question and whole problematic of measurement is a thorny subject in quantum mechanics. This is subject to the different "interpretations". Basically i follow the "statistical interpretation" which guided Leslie Ballentine to write his excellent book on QM.
That's why i claim that what you wote above is incorrect.

Yes, anticommutators, just like commutators are nothing but a mathematical tool.

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
...Basically i follow the "statistical interpretation" which guided Leslie Ballentine to write his excellent book on QM.
That's why i claim that what you wote above is incorrect.

IIRC, a somewhat general expression for the uncertainty principle shows that the uncertainty in the measurement of two quantities is proportional to their commutator, which means that, regardless of interpretation, two observables can indeed be measured simultaneously if they have a vanishing commutator (with the possible exception in the case of time-dependent operators).
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top