Do Commuting Operators Always Form a Basis in QM and QFT?

Click For Summary
In quantum mechanics, commuting operators A and B share common eigenstates, but this does not guarantee that operators B and C will also commute, even if both commute with A. Counterexamples demonstrate that while [A,B]=0 and [A,C]=0, it does not imply [B,C]=0, as shown with angular momentum operators and Dirac gamma matrices. The presence of degeneracy in eigenvalues complicates the relationship, as A may share different eigenstates with B and C. The Jacobi identity indicates that while [B,C] commutes with A, it does not necessarily mean B and C commute with each other. Thus, the assumption that common eigenstates of A lead to common eigenstates of B and C is generally invalid.
wangyi
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Hi, I have a question,
As it is said in QM, if two operators commute, they have so many common eigenstates that they form a basis. And the inverse is right.
Now there is the question,
if A,B,C are operators, [A,B]=0, [A,C]=0,
then is "[B,C]=0" also right?

If we simply say A and B, A and C both have common eigenstates, so B and C have common eigenstates, so [B,C]=0, it seems to be right.

But in QFT, if x,y spacelike, then [\phi(x),\phi(y)]=0,
if the above is right, then we can find a point z which is spacelike according to two non-spacelike point x,y to make any non-spacelike [\phi(x),\phi(y)]=0. It looks like a paradox.

thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
> If A,B,C are operators, [A,B]=0, [A,C]=0,
> then is "[B,C]=0" also right?

No, it's not right. For a counterexample in the usual QM variables, let A=x, B=y, C=p_y.

For a counterexample in the Dirac gamma matrices,
let A=\gamma^0, B=\gamma^1\gamma^2, C=\gamma^1\gamma^3.

For a counterexample in QFT, replace the gamma matrices with your favorite four anticommuting field variables.

In each of these counterexamples, A commutes with B and A commutes with C, but B and C do not commute.

Carl
 
wangyi said:
Now there is the question,
if A,B,C are operators, [A,B]=0, [A,C]=0,
then is "[B,C]=0" also right?

No. The angular momentum operators give a counterexample: A = L^2, B = L_x, and C = L_y. Then [A,B] = [A,C] = 0. But [B,C]= [L_x, L_y] = ih L_z.

It is true, however, that [B, C] commutes with A. This can be seen from the jacobi identity

[A, [B, C]] + [B, [C, A]] + [C, [A, B]] = 0.
 
> If we simply say A and B, A and C both have
> common eigenstates, so B and C have common
> eigenstates, so [B,C]=0, it seems to be right.

If A has no degeneracy in its eigenvalues, then your logic works. In the presence of degeneracy, A can arrange to share a different set of eigenstates with B than it shares with C.

Carl
 
[A,B]=0 means you can find a set of eigenstates common to A and B.
[A,C]=0 means you can find a set of eigenstates common to A and C.

That doesn't imply these two sets are the same, so it will in general not give a set of eigenstates common to B and C.
 
Thank you all, i see :)
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
638
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
579
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K