How Do You Solve These Commutator Relations?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on solving specific commutator relations, with the user expressing confusion about applying known equations to the first relation. A suggestion is made to expand the commutator in the form [AB,C] to express it in terms of simpler commutators. The importance of proving the relevant equation is emphasized, with a recommendation to utilize mathematical induction. Additionally, a user references an identity proposed by another participant, @Orodruin, as a potential solution. The conversation highlights the need for a strategic approach to these commutator problems.
Juli
Messages
24
Reaction score
6
Homework Statement
Solve ##[\hat{r}^{17}, \hat{p}]## and ##[\hat{r}, \hat{p}^{250}]##
Relevant Equations
##[\hat{p}, \hat{x}^{n}] = - i \hbar n x^{n-1}##
Hello, I need to solve the commutator relations above. I found the equation above for the last one, but I am not sure, if something similar applys to the first one. I am a little bit confused, because I know there has to be a trick and you don't solve it like other commutator.
Thanks for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with the expansion of a commutator on the form ##[AB,C]##? If not, take the time to write it out and see if you can express it in terms of commutators containing only two operators.
 
You understand, of course, that the relevant equation is what you need to prove. You can do this using mathematical induction and the identity suggested by @Orodruin.
 
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...