Do Non-Commuting Derivatives Shape New Physical Theories?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutation Derivatives
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the concept of non-commuting derivatives in physical theories, examining their implications in various fields such as quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and general relativity. Participants consider both theoretical frameworks and mathematical properties related to this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the possibility of developing physical theories where derivatives do not commute, referencing foundational calculus principles.
  • Others mention existing theories, such as Yang-Mills gauge theory and supersymmetry, where non-commuting derivatives play a role.
  • A participant points out that in electromagnetism, the covariant derivative does not commute under certain conditions, highlighting its relevance in the standard model of particle physics.
  • Some discuss the implications of non-commuting derivatives for observables in quantum mechanics, suggesting that specific wavefunctions could lead to non-standard physical situations.
  • There is mention of torsion as a means to break the symmetry of mixed second partial derivatives, with references to various physical theories that incorporate this concept.
  • A participant brings up non-commutative geometry and its literature, suggesting a connection to the discussion on derivatives.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the conditions under which derivatives commute and the implications of introducing dependencies among variables.
  • References to singularities and examples from topology, such as Dirac's monopole and complex analysis, are made to illustrate the complexities involved in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views and remains unresolved, with participants exploring various aspects of non-commuting derivatives without reaching consensus on their implications or applications.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the technical details surrounding the conditions for commutation of derivatives and the implications of introducing dependencies among variables.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
Has anyone tried to make physical theories where the derivatives do not commute?

I mean there's a condition on the derivatives of every function for them to commute which is learned in first year calculus.

I mean in QM and QFT we grew accustomed to operators that do not commute, so why not also for differential operators?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure,in Calculus of Grassmann variables derivatives do anticommute.Basic notion of Supersymmetry in Superspace formalism has it's application.
 
From one perspective, all currently known fundamental physics is based on theories where derivatives do not commute.

A simple example: in electromagnetism, we can define
D_\mu = \partial_\mu - ieA_\mu ,
which acts just like (because it is) a derivative operator.

From which we compute
[D_\mu, D_\nu] = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu \neq 0
(at least when there is an electro-magnetic field present). Every force in the standard model is like this (with a minor but important modification). General relativity works similarly as well.
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
Has anyone tried to make physical theories where the derivatives do not commute?

I mean there's a condition on the derivatives of every function for them to commute which is learned in first year calculus.

I mean in QM and QFT we grew accustomed to operators that do not commute, so why not also for differential operators?

Look up Yang-Mills gauge theory and non-abelian SU(N) groups, it's based on non-commuting differential operators. 't Hooft's renormalization of this theory in the early seventies is what basically allows the existence of the SM as we know it. So this is not BTSM at all.
On the other hand, as mentioned in a link above, GR's curvature tensor is also a commutator of covariant derivatives.
 
DimReg said:
From one perspective, all currently known fundamental physics is based on theories where derivatives do not commute.

A simple example: in electromagnetism, we can define
D_\mu = \partial_\mu - ieA_\mu ,
which acts just like (because it is) a derivative operator.

From which we compute
[D_\mu, D_\nu] = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu \neq 0
(at least when there is an electro-magnetic field present). Every force in the standard model is like this (with a minor but important modification). General relativity works similarly as well.

What I meant is that when you have something like this:
\partial_t \partial_x - \partial_x \partial_t

This equals zero when certain conditions are met in simple analysis.
 
andrien said:
Sure,in Calculus of Grassmann variables derivatives do anticommute.Basic notion of Supersymmetry in Superspace formalism has it's application.

I didn't refer to Grassmann variables, these variables seem strange for me; Integration is the same as derivative?!
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
What I meant is that when you have something like this:
\partial_t \partial_x - \partial_x \partial_t

This equals zero when certain conditions are met in simple analysis.

Oh I see. My first thought is that this would be a lot of work for something we basically already have: a representation of non commuting operators. But my second thought is that this might be a way to create some non standard physical situations, where for example energy and momentum would not be simultaneous observables.

I would guess that you can already do this if you want in Quantum Mechanics, where all you have to do is pick a wavefunction that doesn't meet the conditions for equality of partial derivatives. (On the other hand, maybe being a member of the Hilbert space would rule out the existence of such a function). Looking at this wikipedia article :(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_of_second_derivatives#Requirement_of_continuity)
I am reminded of the dirac delta potential, which seems similar to the example they give under "Requirement of Continuity".
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
What I meant is that when you have something like this:
\partial_t \partial_x - \partial_x \partial_t

This equals zero when certain conditions are met in simple analysis.

Ah, ok, it seems we all thought about covariant derivatives. The only way you can break the symmetry of mixed second partial derivatives besides changing the topological conditions you refer to is by introducing torsion. There are quite a few physical theories that introduce torsion.
 
  • #10
DimReg said:
Oh I see. My first thought is that this would be a lot of work for something we basically already have: a representation of non commuting operators. But my second thought is that this might be a way to create some non standard physical situations, where for example energy and momentum would not be simultaneous observables.

I would guess that you can already do this if you want in Quantum Mechanics, where all you have to do is pick a wavefunction that doesn't meet the conditions for equality of partial derivatives. (On the other hand, maybe being a member of the Hilbert space would rule out the existence of such a function). Looking at this wikipedia article :(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_of_second_derivatives#Requirement_of_continuity)
I am reminded of the dirac delta potential, which seems similar to the example they give under "Requirement of Continuity".

Well we actually look at ringed Hilbert spaces, i.e that the wave function is in Schwartz class. (This is what I remember from reading Atkinson's textbook).

The Schwartz class property doesn't regard continuity of the derivative, but I should recheck it, cause I am talking from my head without really remembering the finer technical details.
 
  • #11
MathematicalPhysicist said:
but I should recheck it, cause I am talking from my head without really remembering the finer technical details.

To be honest, it's clear you know more about this stuff than I do, so I doubt I can help you any further.
 
  • #12
Well what I'd do, would be taking the definition of the derivative, and see when the partial derivatives don't commute and why. I guess they always commute as long as the one's variable which is acting first is not dependent on the others (at least that's what I get by seeing it).
But if you want to make a spacetime variable let us say to explicitly depend on the other, then you reduce the dimension on your problem (getting multipliers for the constraint needed)...
 
  • #13
This sounds somewhat like non-commutative geometry, on which there is a wealth of literature.
 
  • #14
MathematicalPhysicist said:
Has anyone tried to make physical theories where the derivatives do not commute?

I mean there's a condition on the derivatives of every function for them to commute which is learned in first year calculus.

I mean in QM and QFT we grew accustomed to operators that do not commute, so why not also for differential operators?

There are some papers in topology which dealed with this subject. The problem is faced with the appearance of singularities. The well-known example is Diracs Monopole. There, the equation dF=0 is not true anymore and this is equivalent to non-commuting derivatives. Of course it was also resolved using fiber bundles.
This example was the starting point of Harvey and Lawson to develop its theory of singular connections. Then the non-commutativity of the derivatives was used to obtain invariant diferetntial forms (like characterictic classes etc.) Another key example came from complex analysis. Consider
d\left( \frac{dz}{z}\right) =\delta(z) d\bar{z}\wedge dz
with the delta function which can be also written as
d^2(ln(z))=\delta(z) d\bar{z}\wedge dz
and the delta function comes from the residue theorem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
15K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K