Commutator with r, p_r and angular momentum

omyojj
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Hi, guys..This is my first time to post. and I got to aplogize for my bad English..I`m a novice..;;

anyway..here`s my curiosity..

From Paul Dirac`s Principles of Quantum Mechanics..p.153
(section of Motion in a central field of force)

It says that

The angular momentum L of the ptl about the orgin ..and its magnitude L^2 commute with r and p_r since they are scalars...

It`s not hard to verify that [L, r] = [L, p_r] = 0

(L_x=x*p_y-y*p_x, r=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^(1/2) etc.)

But I just want to understand the underlying physics..

commutator(Quantum Poisson`s Bracket) with L zero?

Are they concerned with conservation of angular momentum? or else?

:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
L^2 is a Casimir operator for the Lie algebra of angular momentum. It just means that r and p_r are \phi independent, and \phi is the canonically conjugate variable of angular momentum.
 
I don`t have any idea what Casimir operator is..

But canonically conjugate variable of angular momentum phi is surely indep. of p_r, r
..

thx a lot!
 
omyojj said:
The angular momentum L of the ptl about the orgin ..and its magnitude L^2 commute with r and p_r since they are scalars...

It`s not hard to verify that [L, r] = [L, p_r] = 0

(L_x=x*p_y-y*p_x, r=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^(1/2) etc.)

But I just want to understand the underlying physics..


Operators of angular momentum (L_x, L_y, L_z) play the role of generators of rotations (actually, this property can be used as a definition of \mathbf{L}). This means that if r is distance measured in the reference frame O, then

r' = \exp(\frac{i}{\hbar} L_x \phi )r \exp(-\frac{i}{\hbar} L_x \phi )...(1)

is the distance in the reference frame O' that is rotated with respect to O by the angle \phi around the x-axis. Since r is a scalar, it is invariant with respect to rotations (r'=r). Then, by Taylor expanding exponents in the right hand side of (1) one can show that this invariance is equivalent to the vanishing commutator

[L_x, r] = 0 [/itex]<br /> <br /> Commutators are closely related to inertial transformations in other examples as well. For example, the Hamiltonian is the generator of time translations, i.e., for any operator F its time dependence is given by<br /> <br /> F(t) = \exp(-\frac{i}{\hbar} Ht )F\exp(\frac{i}{\hbar} Ht )<br /> <br /> and F does not depend on time if and only if F commutes with the Hamiltonian. <br /> <br /> Eugene.
 
Last edited:
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
1
Views
493
Replies
29
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
415
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top