Determining the commutation relation of operators - Einstein summation notation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the commutation relation of operators using Einstein summation notation, specifically focusing on the commutator [L_i, C_j]. The operators L_i and C_i are defined in terms of the Levi-Civita symbol and involve vector components.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the expansion of the commutator and the use of indices, questioning whether it is possible to simplify the expression by reducing the number of indices involved. There is discussion about the implications of using all six indices versus attempting to use only four.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the complexity of the indices involved and discussing the limitations of their approaches. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of the Levi-Civita symbol and the nature of the indices, but no consensus has been reached on a specific method.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the challenge of working with six indices in the context of the problem, and participants express a desire to find a more manageable approach. The discussion reflects the constraints of the problem setup and the inherent complexity of the notation involved.

jmcelve
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Determining the commutation relation of operators -- Einstein summation notation

Homework Statement



Determine the commutator [L_i, C_j].

Homework Equations



L_i = \epsilon_{ijk}r_j p_k
C_i = \epsilon_{ijk}A_j B_k
[L_i, A_j] = i \hbar \epsilon_{ijk} A_k
[L_i, B_j] = i \hbar \epsilon_{ijk} B_k

The Attempt at a Solution



To be clear, the goal of this procedure is to become familiar with Einstein summation notation. That said, I've broken open C_j = \epsilon_{jmn}A_m B_n and expanded the commutator accordingly. My problem is opening up L_i in a meaningful way that gives me a nice identity with four deltas. Will I have to expand two epsilons with 6 different indices into deltas, or is there any way to get the epsilons to share an index that will give me the result (which I know to be [L_i, C_j] = i \hbar \epsilon_{ijk}C_k)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Well, since the two free indices i and j are expressedly independent you can't set i=j (it's more interesting to calculate the commutator for two specific terms than the sum anyway). And the other four indices are already contracted, so you can't contract them with either i or j. You will just have to use all six indices.
 


Hypersphere said:
Well, since the two free indices i and j are expressedly independent you can't set i=j (it's more interesting to calculate the commutator for two specific terms than the sum anyway). And the other four indices are already contracted, so you can't contract them with either i or j. You will just have to use all six indices.

That's super ugly. We really only talked about expanding epsilons in terms of deltas when there were four differing indices, not six. Is there a method to do this problem that requires using only four indices?
 


jmcelve said:
That's super ugly. We really only talked about expanding epsilons in terms of deltas when there were four differing indices, not six. Is there a method to do this problem that requires using only four indices?

It's not pretty, I agree, but then again the Levi-Civita symbol is what you use to hide the ugly things. It's possible to group the terms somewhat, but you can't remove degrees of freedom unless you now that one or more of the vector components happen to be zero... Just be happy that you don't work in four dimensions.
 


Hypersphere said:
Just be happy that you don't work in four dimensions.

Noted. Thanks for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K