Angular momentum operator commutation relation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the commutation relation of the angular momentum operators, specifically the relation \(\left[ \hat{L}_x, \hat{L}_y \right] = i \hbar \hat{L}_z\). Participants explore the mathematical derivation involving wavefunctions and the application of the product rule in differentiation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation involving the angular momentum operators and seeks clarification on a specific term in the expansion.
  • Another participant suggests using the product rule to calculate a derivative involving the wavefunction.
  • Multiple participants reiterate the product rule, providing detailed steps to clarify the differentiation process.
  • A participant questions why the product rule is not applied similarly to other terms in the expression, expressing confusion over the consistency of its application.
  • Another participant points out that the derivative of a variable independent of \(z\) is zero, which resolves the confusion for the original poster.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the application of the product rule, but there is some initial confusion regarding its consistent application across different terms in the expression. The discussion remains focused on clarifying these mathematical details without reaching a consensus on broader implications.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the independence of variables in differentiation and the application of the product rule, but does not resolve all potential ambiguities in the derivation process.

Bernard
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I am reading a proof of why

\left[ \hat{L}_x, \hat{L}_y \right ] = i \hbar \hat{L}_z

Given a wavefunction \psi,
\hat{L}_x, \hat{L}_y \psi = \left( -i\hbar \right)^2 \left( y \frac{\partial}{\partial z} - z \frac {\partial}{\partial y} \right ) \left (z \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} - x \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z } \right )

= -\hbar ^2 \left ( yz \frac{\partial ^2 \psi}{\partial z \partial x} + y \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} - yx \frac{\partial ^2 \psi}{\partial z^2} - z^2 \frac{\partial ^2 \psi}{\partial y \partial x} + zx \frac{\partial ^2 \psi}{\partial y \partial z} \right )

This is a simple expansion of the brackets. I don't understand however, where the second term in the brackets of the last equation comes from?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Use the product rule to calculate ##y \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \left(z\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}\right)## because both ##z## and ##\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}## are a function of ##z##.
 
The product rule:
$$
y\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}(z \cdot \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})= y\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}(z)\cdot \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} + y\cdot z\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})=y \cdot 1 \cdot \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} + y\cdot z \cdot \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial z \partial x}
$$
 
fresh_42 said:
The product rule:
$$
y\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}(z \cdot \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})= y\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}(z)\cdot \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} + y\cdot z\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})=y \cdot 1 \cdot \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} + y\cdot z \cdot \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial z \partial x}
$$
yes I understand that but why not, by the same reasoning, this is not applied on the other terms? (or maybe it is and I am not seeing it) i.e. why not

y \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \left( -x \frac {\partial \psi}{\partial z} \right ) = y \frac{\partial(-x)}{\partial z} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z} - xy \frac{ \partial ^2 \psi}{\partial z^2}

but just y \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \left( -x \frac {\partial \psi}{\partial z} \right ) = - xy \frac{ \partial ^2 \psi}{\partial z^2}
 
What is ##y \frac{\partial(-x)}{\partial z}## equal to? Recall that ##x## and ##z## are independent variables.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
What is ##y \frac{\partial(-x)}{\partial z}## equal to? Recall that ##x## and ##z## are independent variables.
yep that is zero. it just slipped my mind. Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
856
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
497
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
234
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K