Expanding the original commutator on the LHS

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the manipulation of commutators in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the expression involving the position operator \(X\) and the exponential operator \(e^{iaP}\). Participants are tasked with showing a relationship involving powers of these operators and their commutation relations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the commutation relation \([x, e^{iaP}] = -\hbar a e^{iaP}\) and attempt to derive expressions for \(x^n e^{iaP}\). Some participants raise questions about the validity of using induction to prove the relationships, while others suggest testing simpler cases first.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various approaches being explored. Some participants have suggested specific cases to simplify the problem, while others are questioning the assumptions made in the inductive reasoning. There is no explicit consensus, but several lines of reasoning are being actively examined.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of non-commuting operators in quantum mechanics, and there are indications of confusion regarding the application of mathematical induction in this context. The discussion reflects a mix of attempts to clarify definitions and assumptions related to the operators involved.

cdot
Messages
44
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Using [x,eiap]=-ħaeiap show that xneiap = eiap(x-ħa)n

Homework Equations


[x,eiap]=-ħaeiap
From which it follows that,
xeiap = eiap(x-ħa)

The Attempt at a Solution


[xn,eiap] = [xxn-1,eiap]
= [x,eiap]xn-1 + x[xn-1,eiap]
= -ħaeiapxn-1 + x(xn-1eiap-eiapxn-1)
= -ħaeiapxn-1 + xneiap - eiap(x-ħa)xn-1

Expanding the original commutator on the LHS and moving the second term to the RHS gives,

xneiap = -ħaeiapxn-1 + xneiap - eiap(x-ħa)xn-1 + eiapxn
= -ħaeiapxn-1 + xneiap + ħaeiapxn-1
xneiap = xneiap Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cdot said:
From which it follows that,
xeiap = eiap(x-ħa)

So,
$$\left( X - \hbar a \right) = e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP}.$$

Now, raise both sides to the power of ##n##.
 
George Jones said:
So,
$$\left( X - \hbar a \right) = e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP}.$$

Now, raise both sides to the power of ##n##.

$$\left(X - \hbar a \right)^n = e^{-niaP} X^n e^{niap}.$$
 
cdot said:
$$\left(X - \hbar a \right)^n = e^{-niaP} X^n e^{niap}.$$
Really? Try a simple case first: ##(e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP})^2##.
 
Does this constitute a legitimate proof by induction?:

$$Xe^{iaP} = e^{iaP}(X-\hbar a)$$
$$X^ne^{iaP} = X^{n-1}Xe^{iap} = X^{n-1}e^{iap}(X-\hbar a) = X^{n-2}Xe^{iap}(X-\hbar a) = X^{n-2}e^{iap}(X-\hbar a)^2$$
$$= \dots$$
$$=X^{0}e^{iap}(X-\hbar a)^{n} = e^{iap}(X-\hbar a)^n$$
 
DrClaude said:
Really? Try a simple case first: ##(e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP})^2##.
Thanks for making me feel stupid by asking if I was serious.
 
cdot said:
Thanks for making me feel stupid by asking if I was serious.
Saying "Really?" was a way to point out politely that you had made a mistake. It surely is better than "Wrong!", no?
 
cdot said:
$$\left(X - \hbar a \right)^n = e^{-niaP} X^n e^{niap}.$$

Because ##X## and ##P## don't commute, this isn't correct. For example, consider ##\left(AB\right)^2 = ABAB##. If ##A## and ##B## commute, then the ##BA## in the middle can be written as ##AB##, and, consequently, ##\left(AB\right)^2 = A^2 B^2##. If ##A## and ##B## do not commute, then this step is not justified.

@DrClaude made the good suggestion of trying ##n = 2##, but let's try ##n = 3##.
$$\left( X - \hbar a \right)^3 = \left( e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP} \right)^3 = \left( e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP} \right)\left( e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP} \right)\left( e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP} \right).$$
Now, remove the backets.

cdot said:
Does this constitute a legitimate proof by induction?:

$$Xe^{iaP} = e^{iaP}(X-\hbar a)$$
$$X^ne^{iaP} = X^{n-1}Xe^{iap} = X^{n-1}e^{iap}(X-\hbar a) = X^{n-2}Xe^{iap}(X-\hbar a) = X^{n-2}e^{iap}(X-\hbar a)^2$$
$$= \dots$$
$$=X^{0}e^{iap}(X-\hbar a)^{n} = e^{iap}(X-\hbar a)^n$$

A more standard form of an inductive argument would be:

Let ##P\left(n\right)## be the statement ##X^n e^{iaP} = e^{iaP} \left( X - \hbar a \right)^n##. Show that ##P\left(1\right)## is true. Show that if ##P\left(k\right)## is true, then ##P\left(k+1\right)## is true.

Usually, an ellipsis does not appear in an argument that uses mathematical induction.
 
George Jones said:
Because ##X## and ##P## don't commute, this isn't correct. For example, consider ##\left(AB\right)^2 = ABAB##. If ##A## and ##B## commute, then the ##BA## in the middle can be written as ##AB##, and, consequently, ##\left(AB\right)^2 = A^2 B^2##. If ##A## and ##B## do not commute, then this step is not justified.

@DrClaude made the good suggestion of trying ##n = 2##, but let's try ##n = 3##.
$$\left( X - \hbar a \right)^3 = \left( e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP} \right)^3 = \left( e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP} \right)\left( e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP} \right)\left( e^{-iaP} X e^{iaP} \right).$$
Now, remove the backets.
A more standard form of an inductive argument would be:

Let ##P\left(n\right)## be the statement ##X^n e^{iaP} = e^{iaP} \left( X - \hbar a \right)^n##. Show that ##P\left(1\right)## is true. Show that if ##P\left(k\right)## is true, then ##P\left(k+1\right)## is true.

Usually, an ellipsis does not appear in an argument that uses mathematical induction.

Ahhh that makes sense now. For practice with proof by induction as you explained it, does this work?

If ##[X,P] = i\hbar## show that ##[X,P^n] = nP^{n-1}i\hbar##

Let ##C(n) = [X,P^n]##
##~~~~~~C(1) = [X,P] = i\hbar##
## \text{If } C(k) = kP^{k-1}i\hbar \text{ is true,} ##
## C(k+1) = [X,P^{k+1}] = [X,P^k]P + P^k[X,P]##
## ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= (kP^{k-1}[X,P])P + P^k[X,P]##
## ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= kP^ki\hbar + P^ki\hbar##
## C(k+1) = (k+1)P^ki\hbar##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K