Commutator of p and x/r: Elegant Derivation in Position Basis

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter VKint
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutator
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the derivation of the commutator $$ \left[ p_k, \frac{x_k}{r} \right] $$, where ##r = (x_1 + x_2 + x_3)^{1/2}## and ##p_k## is the momentum operator conjugate to ##x_k##. The derived commutator is confirmed as $$ -i \hbar \left( \frac{1}{r} - \frac{x_k^2}{r^3} \right) $$ using the position basis. Additionally, a useful relation is introduced: if $$[A,B]=C$$ and $$[A,C]=[B,C]=0$$, then $$[A,f(B)]=f'(B).C$$, which can be proven through series expansion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and operator algebra
  • Familiarity with commutation relations in quantum mechanics
  • Knowledge of the position basis and momentum operators
  • Basic calculus, particularly series expansions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of commutators in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the implications of the relation $$[A,f(B)]=f'(B).C$$ in various contexts
  • Investigate the properties of the momentum operator in different bases
  • Learn about the applications of commutators in quantum field theory
USEFUL FOR

Quantum mechanics students, physicists, and researchers interested in operator theory and commutation relations in quantum systems.

VKint
Messages
139
Reaction score
12
This question came up in this thread: <https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ydrogen-atom-hamiltonian.933842/#post-5898454>

In the course of answering the OP's question, I came across the commutator
$$ \left[ p_k, \frac{x_k}{r} \right] $$
where ##r = (x_1 + x_2 + x_3)^{1/2}## and ##p_k## is the momentum operator conjugate to ##x_k##. It's easy to show that the commutator is
$$ -i \hbar \left( \frac{1}{r} - \frac{x_k^2}{r^3} \right) $$
by working in the position basis. My question is: Is there a more elegant way (i.e., independent of basis) of deriving this commutator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems to me that some squares are missing in the definition of r.

apart from that, a useful relation can be used

if ##[A,B]=C## and ##[A,C]=[B,C]=0## then
$$[A,f(B)]=f'(B).C$$

This can be proven from filling in the series expansion of f.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: yamata1
Yeah, it seems I typed out the question a bit too quickly :P

Thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: thephystudent

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K