Commuting Operators and Eigenfunctions in One Dimension

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LagrangeEuler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of commuting operators and their eigenfunctions in one-dimensional quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of operator commutation on the existence of common eigenstates and the specific case of the momentum operator and its square.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that for every operator ##A##, the commutation relation ##[A,A^n]=0## holds, and discusses the eigenfunctions of the momentum operator ##p## and its square ##p^2##, specifically noting that ##\sin kx## is an eigenfunction of ##p^2## but not of ##p##.
  • Another participant clarifies that commuting operators do not necessarily share the same set of eigenstates, but there exists a common set of eigenstates for both operators.
  • A further response reiterates the previous point, emphasizing that while not every eigenstate of one operator is an eigenstate of the other, at least one set of common eigenstates exists.
  • A participant provides an example using matrices to illustrate that commuting matrices can have different eigenvalues for certain eigenvectors, reinforcing the idea that commutation does not imply identical eigenstates.
  • A later reply confirms the understanding that the eigenstates found for ##p^2## do not correspond to eigenstates of ##p##, affirming the previous points made in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the distinction between commuting operators and their eigenstates, recognizing that while they can have common eigenstates, this does not imply that all eigenstates of one operator are eigenstates of the other. However, the discussion remains nuanced with respect to specific examples and interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of operator commutation without resolving the broader implications for different types of operators or specific cases beyond the momentum operator and its square.

LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22
For every operator ##A##, ##[A,A^n]=0##. And if operators commute they have complete eigen- spectrum the same. But if I look for ##p## and ##p^2## in one dimension ##sin kx## is eigen- function of ##p^2##, but it isn't eigen-function of ##p##.
[tex]p^2 \sin kx=number \sin kx[/tex]
[tex]p\sin kx \neq number \sin kx[/tex]
where
[tex]p=-i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}[/tex]
[tex]p^2=-\hbar^2\frac{d^2}{dx^2}[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When two operators commute with each other this doesn't mean that they have the same set of eigenstates. This means that you can alway find a set of eigenstates common to both the operators.
In you particular case the set of common eigenstates must be composed of some other functions.
 
Einj said:
When two operators commute with each other this doesn't mean that they have the same set of eigenstates. This means that you can alway find a set of eigenstates common to both the operators.
In you particular case the set of common eigenstates must be composed of some other functions.

If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that if two operators commute, then it is wrong to conclude that every eigenstate of one operator is necessarily an eigenstate of the other operator. However it is right to conclude that at least one set of eigenstates of one is a set of eigenstates of the other.

And so the set of eigenstates the original poster found for p^2 just happened to be one of those sets that isn't a set of eigenstates for p.

Is that right?
 
As a simple example of what is going on here, consider two matrices: diag(1, 1) and diag(1, -1). These matrices commute (after all, one is the identity). Yet the column vector (1 1) is a eigenvalue of the first matrix, but not of the second. The fact that the matrices commute only tells us that there is some basis of common eigenvectors; in this case, the vectors (1, 0) and (0, 1).
 
DocZaius said:
And so the set of eigenstates the original poster found for p^2 just happened to be one of those sets that isn't a set of eigenstates for p.

Is that right?

That's correct :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K