Demonstration [L_i,x_j]= ε_ijk x_k

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ebol
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Demonstration
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating the commutation relation between angular momentum operators and position operators, specifically showing that \([L_i,x_j]= i \hbar \varepsilon_{ijk} x_k\). Participants explore the steps involved in deriving this relation and identify potential mistakes in the calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over their calculation of the commutation relation and suspects a mistake in their derivation.
  • The participant's initial expression for angular momentum is given as \(L_i = \varepsilon_{ijk} x_j p_k\), leading to a series of steps attempting to compute \([L_i,x_l]\).
  • Another participant points out that the result \(\frac{\hbar}{i} \varepsilon_{ijk} x_j\) can be simplified to \(i \hbar \varepsilon_{ijk} x_k\) by recognizing the relationship between \(\frac{1}{i}\) and \(i\) in the context of the Levi-Civita symbol.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the commutation of indices \(j\) and \(k\) and how it affects the sign in the expression.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to agree on the simplification of the expression involving the Levi-Civita symbol, but the initial confusion regarding the derivation indicates that there may still be some unresolved aspects of the calculation.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made in the derivation steps and the dependence on the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol, which are not fully explored.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students or individuals studying quantum mechanics, particularly those interested in angular momentum and operator algebra.

ebol
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi!
I have to show that
[itex][L_i,x_j]= i \hbar \varepsilon_{ijk} x_k[/itex]

but my result is different, I'm definitely making a mistake :confused:
ok I wrote
[itex]L_i = \varepsilon_{ijk} x_j p_k[/itex]
then
[itex][L_i,x_l]= \varepsilon_{ijk} ( [x_j p_k , x_l] ) = \varepsilon_{ijk} ( {x_j [p_k , x_l] + [x_j , x_l] p_k } ) = \varepsilon_{ijk} ( {x_j [p_k , x_l] } ) =[/itex]

[itex]= \varepsilon_{ijk} ( {x_j \frac{\hbar}{i} δ_{kl} } ) = \frac{\hbar}{i} \varepsilon_{ijk} {x_j }[/itex]

can anyone tell me where I'm wrong? :frown:
thanks anyway! :smile:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
welcome to pf!

hi ebol! welcome to pf! :smile:
ebol said:
I have to show that
[itex][L_i,x_j]= i \hbar \varepsilon_{ijk} x_k[/itex]

[itex]= \frac{\hbar}{i} \varepsilon_{ijk} {x_j }[/itex]

but [itex]\frac{1}{i} \varepsilon_{ijk} {x_j } = i \varepsilon_{ijk} x_k[/itex] :wink:
 
ah!
and why? :)
Because the indices [itex]j[/itex] and [itex]k[/itex] commute and changes the sign?
 
yup! :biggrin:

that's what ε does!​
 
thank you very much!
I arrived at the solution but I did not know :D
 
he he :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
30K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K