Angular Momentum commutation relationships

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the commutation relationships of angular momentum operators and their implications in quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the order of operator application and the non-commutativity of linear operators.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the order of linear operators matters, indicating that for operators A and B, AB is not necessarily equal to BA.
  • It is noted that linear operators generally do not commute, with position and momentum operators provided as a common example.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding the expansion of the commutation relation [Lx, Ly] in terms of position and momentum operators, questioning whether it is valid to assume non-commutativity to prove other operators do not commute.
  • Another participant confirms that it is acceptable to assume non-commutativity in deriving commutation relations for position and momentum operators.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of being cautious when changing the order of operators, as commuting operators can introduce new terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the order of operator application is significant and that linear operators typically do not commute. However, there is some uncertainty regarding the implications of assuming non-commutativity in specific proofs, indicating that the discussion remains somewhat unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of operator relationships in quantum mechanics, particularly the need to consider the implications of non-commutativity when manipulating operators. There are unresolved aspects regarding the specific conditions under which certain assumptions are valid.

ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
It seems to be implied, but I can't find it explicitly - the order in which linear operators are applied makes a difference. IE given linear operators A,B then AB is NOT necessarily the same as BA ? I thought it was only with rotation operators that the order made a difference?

I noticed this while looking at text that showed [Lx,Ly] = i(h-bar)Lz, using only position and momentum operators...<<mentor note: originally posted in homework forum, template removed>>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In general, linear operators will not commute. Another common example is the position and momentum operators.
 
Thanks - of course, not a clever question when I am studying commutation relationships... But now I might see what was bothering me (I think) - the text expands [Lx,Ly] in terms of position and momentum operators, you get 8 terms like YPzZPx - the last 4 could cancel the 1st 4 out - but only if it was OK to change the order - like ZPxYPz (which is the 1st of the last 4, to complete the example). So are they OK in assuming that the operators don't commute - in order to prove that other operators don't commute?
 
ognik said:
So are they OK in assuming that the operators don't commute - in order to prove that other operators don't commute?

Yes. You can easily derive the commutation relations for ##P_i## with ##X_i## using the position basis representation ##P_i \to -i\partial_i## and ##X_i \to x^i## and their action on any wave function ##\psi(x)##.
 
ognik said:
the order in which linear operators are applied makes a difference.

If they don't commute yes... if they commute, no...
If they commute, you have to be careful when changing the order -> new terms can be brought in.
For example if I have [itex]x p_x[/itex] and I want for some calculation to rewrite it in [itex]p_x x[/itex] (because it would come handy) I would have to use the relation:
[itex][x, p_x ] = x p_x - p_x x= i \hbar \Rightarrow x p_x = p_x x + i \hbar[/itex] and that's with what you change [itex]x p_x[/itex].
 
Thanks all
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K