Commuting Operators and Eigenfunctions in One Dimension

  • Thread starter Thread starter LagrangeEuler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutator
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##.
p^2 \sin kx=number \sin kx
p\sin kx \neq number \sin kx
where
p=-i\hbar\frac{d}{dx}
p^2=-\hbar^2\frac{d^2}{dx^2}
 
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:
 
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...
Back
Top