Commuting, non-commuting, anti-commuting

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Lapidus
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of commuting, non-commuting, and anti-commuting operators in the context of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the operators associated with position (X) and momentum (P), as well as their implications for fermions and bosons. Participants explore the mathematical definitions and physical interpretations of these relationships.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that [A,B] = 0 indicates commuting operators, while [A,B] ≠ 0 indicates non-commuting operators, and [A,B] = -[B,A] indicates anti-commuting.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the distinction between mathematical language for Lie algebras and physical language for observables, questioning if they are fundamentally the same.
  • It is mentioned that for fermions, the anti-commutation relations {A,B} imply that A and B anticommute if {A,B} = 0, but there is a question about the application of these relations to operators like X and P.
  • A participant clarifies that X and P do not commute for any quantum object and that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions, where swapping two fermions results in a sign flip of the state.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the anti-commutation property applies to states of fermions, not to operators like X and P, which are discussed in terms of their commutation properties.
  • It is asserted that the statement [A,B] = -[B,A] is a general property of the commutator and does not imply that A and B anticommute unless {A,B} = 0.
  • There is a clarification that X and P do not anticommute, as the anti-commutator for operators does not have a physical meaning.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of commuting versus anti-commuting operators, particularly in relation to fermions and bosons. There is no consensus on the interpretation of these concepts, and confusion remains regarding their application in quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity regarding the definitions of commuting and anti-commuting in the context of operators versus states, as well as the implications of these properties in quantum mechanics. The discussion reveals potential misunderstandings about the relationships between mathematical definitions and physical interpretations.

Lapidus
Messages
344
Reaction score
12
We have

[A,B] equals zero, commuting

[A,B] not equals zero, not commuting

[A,B] = - [B,A] , anti-commuting


So then we can say

[X,P] anticommutes, since [X,P]= -[P,X] , and

[X,P] does not commute, since [X,P] = ih

I find that confusing. Is there something I missed? (Is this on the one hand math language for the Lie algebra, which needs to be anti-commuting, and on the other hand physics language for commuting and non-commuting observables?)

Also, for femions there is the anti-commuting relations {A,B}. Here A,B anticommute if {A,B} is zero. But X and P for bosons anticommute, why are we here not using the anticommutator.

Can someone unconfuse me?
thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oooops,

just noticed that [A,B] = -[B,A] means antisymmetric!
 
Lapidus said:
(Is this on the one hand math language for the Lie algebra, which needs to be anti-commuting, and on the other hand physics language for commuting and non-commuting observables?)

They're the same underlying mathematics, just applied in different ways.

Lapidus said:
Also, for femions there is the anti-commuting relations {A,B}. Here A,B anticommute if {A,B} is zero.

Yes, but *what* do these relations apply to for fermions? It's not operators like X and P; those do not commute for *any* quantum object, whether it's a boson or a fermion, as you note. For fermions, the actual *states* anti-commute, in the sense that, for example, if we take a two-fermion state and swap the fermions, the state flips sign. This is just the mathematical realization of the Pauli exclusion principle.

Lapidus said:
X and P for bosons anticommute, why are we here not using the anticommutator.

Because the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't apply to bosons; boson states do not flip sign if two bosons are swapped. Mathematically, this means that boson states can be described by ordinary numbers, which commute with each other under all algebraic operations. Fermion states, on the other hand, can't be described by ordinary numbers, because fermion states have to anti-commute under certain operations (like swapping two fermions).

As for X and P, those are operators, not states, and the key physical question for operators is whether they commute, i.e., whether they give the same joint result regardless of the order in which they are applied. That's why you only see commutators evaluated for operators; the anti-commutator for operators doesn't mean anything, physically.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Lapidus said:
[A,B] = - [B,A] , anti-commuting

No. [A, B] = -[B, A] is a general property of the commutator (or Lie brackets more generally), true for any operators A and B:

(AB - BA) = -(BA - AB)

We say that A and B anticommute only if {A,B} = 0, that is AB + BA = 0. X and P do not anticommute.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K