Do Commuting Operators Always Form a Basis 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 A=x, B=y, C=p_y.

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

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 :)
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
973
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top