How is the commutator derived through the general form of expectation value?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elekko
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutator
Elekko
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi!

In my textbook the explanation of the expectation value in general covering any observable Q is:

\overline{Q} = \int \Psi^\ast (x,t) \hat{Q}\Psi(x,t) dx

Then they define the commutator as:

[\hat{A},\hat{B}] = \hat{A}\hat{B}-\hat{B}\hat{A}

Now for position and momentum they give directly it as:

[\hat{x},\hat{p}] = i\hbar

Now my question is: how is that possible? I know what the operators of the observables for both position and momentum are, but I do not understand why the commutator can be derived trough the general form of EXPECTATION value?? Expectation value is a value but the commutator is an operator on operators??
Can anyone help me with this confusion? I am new to quantum physics. Thanx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi Elekko! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(write "itex" rather than "tex", and it won't keep starting a new line :wink:)
Elekko said:
[\hat{x},\hat{p}] = i\hbar

… Expectation value is a value but the commutator is an operator on operators??

Are you asking how the LHS is an operator, but the RHS is only a number?

It's because the RHS is really i\hbar I, where I is the identity operator (the operator that converts anything to itself) … we don't usually bother to write it. :smile:
 
Elekko said:
Now my question is: how is that possible? I know what the operators of the observables for both position and momentum are, but I do not understand why the commutator can be derived trough the general form of EXPECTATION value?? Expectation value is a value but the commutator is an operator on operators??
Can anyone help me with this confusion? I am new to quantum physics. Thanx
I don't understand your questions. You may want to clarify them a bit. The words "through the general form of expectation value" are especially confusing. Have you seen a derivation of a commutator that involves an expectation value? What do you mean by "operator on operators"? It's just an operator. The "product" AB is defined by (AB)f=A(Bf) where f is a square-integrable function from ##\mathbb R^3## to ##\mathbb C##. So the "product" AB is just the composition ##A\circ B##. The sum of two operators is defined by (A+B)f=Af+Bf. So [A,B]f=A(Bf)-B(Af).
 
The commutator is not defined from the expectation value, the expectation value necessarily depends on the particular wavefunction whereas the commutator is defined as a property of a pair of operators, regardless of any particular wavefunction.
 
Well, in a sense the commutator itself is indeed an operator on operators, since the input is two operators and it gives a new operator. More exactly if \mathcal B is the space of operators, then the commutator is a function \mathcal B \times \mathcal B \to \mathcal B : (\hat A, \hat B) \mapsto \hat A \hat B - \hat B \hat A.

As for the OP's initial question, it seems he's under the impression that the identity [\hat x , \hat p ] = i\hbar was derived using expectation values; he probably thought so because the book seemed to imply it by introducing commutators after introducing expectation values and immediately stating "one can see that [\hat x , \hat p ] = i\hbar". I'm not sure if I interpreted the OP correctly though, but if so: no worries, the identity has nothing to do with expectation values. To get the "[\hat x , \hat p ] = i\hbar" identity, one writes [\hat x , \hat p ] out in terms of the actual operators (i.e. derivatives) and then applying that to a general \psi one can prove, using some algebra, that this is equal to i\hbar \psi.
 


Hi all,

I appreciate for all your reply!

tiny-tim said:
Hi Elekko! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(write "itex" rather than "tex", and it won't keep starting a new line :wink:)


Are you asking how the LHS is an operator, but the RHS is only a number?

It's because the RHS is really i\hbar I, where I is the identity operator (the operator that converts anything to itself) … we don't usually bother to write it. :smile:


So this means that in the case of momentum and position, the "identity" operator is: \Psi?
 
Hi Elekko! :smile:

(remember to close your latex with a / :wink:)
Elekko said:
So this means that in the case of momentum and position, the "identity" operator is: \Psi ?

nooo :confused:

the identity operator is I

the effect of I on ψ is ψ​
 
mr. vodka said:
Well, in a sense the commutator itself is indeed an operator on operators, since the input is two operators and it gives a new operator. More exactly if \mathcal B is the space of operators, then the commutator is a function \mathcal B \times \mathcal B \to \mathcal B : (\hat A, \hat B) \mapsto \hat A \hat B - \hat B \hat A.

As for the OP's initial question, it seems he's under the impression that the identity [\hat x , \hat p ] = i\hbar was derived using expectation values; he probably thought so because the book seemed to imply it by introducing commutators after introducing expectation values and immediately stating "one can see that [\hat x , \hat p ] = i\hbar". I'm not sure if I interpreted the OP correctly though, but if so: no worries, the identity has nothing to do with expectation values. To get the "[\hat x , \hat p ] = i\hbar" identity, one writes [\hat x , \hat p ] out in terms of the actual operators (i.e. derivatives) and then applying that to a general \psi one can prove, using some algebra, that this is equal to i\hbar \psi.

So here, it means that when we derive the commutator for momentum and position to i\hbar \psi the \psi is always applied and it can be seen as and identity operator as tiny-tim mentioned?
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi Elekko! :smile:

(remember to close your latex with a / :wink:)


nooo :confused:

the identity operator is I

the effect of I on ψ is ψ​


Wow you're quick in replying.
So let me see if I have got it right:

the expectation value \overline{Q} = \int \Psi^\ast (x,t) \hat{Q}\Psi(x,t) dx has nothing to do with to derive the commutator.
The commutator of momentum and position is simply i\hbar by using the observables in the definition of commutator. And \psi can be applied in case of showing it in general?
 
  • #10
Post #8 doesn't seem correct, (though post #9 does)

To find the commutator, evaluate [AB-BA](phi). If you get zero, then the operators commute, otherwise you will get X(phi) where X is the commutator operator, and you can read off what X is. It is always an operator.

For position and momentum,

[x,p](phi) = iħ*phi ≡ X(phi)

Note the brackets are still used on the right, because the commutator is not simply a number "iħ", it is an operator, equivalent to "multiply argument by iħ".

In this sense, [x,p] is not strictly iħ, it is iħ*, but the multiplication sign is often omitted.
 
  • #11
Elekko said:
The commutator of momentum and position is simply i\hbar by using the observables in the definition of commutator.

See what MikeyW :smile: says.
And \psi can be applied in case of showing it in general?

I have no idea what you mean. :redface:

ψ is any wavefunction

any operator equation A = B means "Aψ = Bψ for any ψ"​
 
  • #12
I think I got it now guys. Thank you!
Tiny-tim, nevermind. It seems that I don't understand why we even do have to apply \psi on the commutator to begin with. Its just simply xp-px where x = x, p = -ihd/dx
 
  • #13
Elekko said:
I think I got it now guys. Thank you!
Tiny-tim, nevermind. It seems that I don't understand why we even do have to apply \psi on the commutator to begin with. Its just simply xp-px where x = x, p = -ihd/dx
Right, but unless you have xp-px act on a function, how are you going to prove that [x,p]=iħ?
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Fredrik said:
Right, but unless you have xp-px act on a function, how are you going to prove that [x,p]=iħ?

Thanks!
I got it now!
In case of quantum mechanics we use the waveFUNCTION \psi in order to prove the commutator.
I appreciate for all your help guys!
 
  • #15
To make things really clear: The commutation relation between position and momentum opertor (in the same direction) follows from the fact that, by definition and as in classical mechanics, the (canonical) momentum of a system is defined by it's operation as a generator of spatial translations.

In the position-space representation, which sometimes is called "wave mechanics", but in fact it's just a representation of quantum theory in the position eigenbasis, the operators thus read
\hat{x} \psi(x)=x \psi(x), \quad \hat{p} \psi(x)=-\mathrm{i} \hbar \mathrm{d}_x \psi(x).
The commutation relations are found by applying these operators in different orders
(\hat{x} \hat{p}-\hat{p} \hat{x})\psi(x)=-\mathrm{i} \hbar [x \mathrm{d}_x \psi(x) - \mathrm{d}_x (x \psi(x))]=\mathrm{i} \hbar \psi(x).
This means that for any wave function the commutator acts as by simply multiplying the wave function by \mathrm{i} \hbar, and this is written in operator form as
[\hat{x},\hat{p}]=\mathrm{i} \hbar \mathbb{1}.
 
  • #16
I suspect that most people who are new to this don't fully understand how results like ##\hat p\hat x\psi(x)=\frac{d}{dx}(x\psi(x))## follow from the definitions, so I will explain that. I will only consider the 1-dimensional case here, so our wavefunctions are functions from ##\mathbb R## into ##\mathbb C##. First note that when ##\psi## denotes such a function, ##\psi(x)## denotes a complex number in its range. So ##\psi(x)## never denotes a function. It's always just a number. This means that an operator like ##\hat x## or ##\hat p## acts on ##\psi##, never on ##\psi(x)##.

##\hat x## is defined by specifying a set of functions that will be its domain, and then specifying ##\hat x\psi## for all ##\psi## in that set. Since ##\hat x\psi## is a function with domain ##\mathbb R##, the way to do this is to specify ##\hat x\psi(x)## for all ##x\in\mathbb R##. (Note that ##\hat x\psi(x)## means ##(\hat x\psi)(x)##. ##\hat x## acts on ##\psi## and ##\hat x\psi## acts on ##x##).

The domain of ##\hat x## is the set of all square-integrable ##\psi:\mathbb R\to\mathbb C## such that the map ##x\mapsto x\psi(x)## is square-integrable. For each ##\psi## in that set, we define
$$\hat x\psi(y)=y\psi(y),$$ for all ##y\in\mathbb R.## (Note that it never matters what variable symbol is used in a "for all" statement. I chose to use y instead of x because I wanted to make it clear that we don't have to use the same symbol that's used in the notation for the position operator).

##\hat p## can be defined without even mentioning a variable (like x) that represents a real number. The domain of ##\hat p## is the set of all square-integrable ##\psi:\mathbb R\to\mathbb C## such that ##\psi'## is square-integrable. For all such ##\psi##, we define
$$\hat p\psi=-i\psi'.$$ I like to use units such that ##\hbar=1##. That's why I don't include ##\hbar## explicitly on the right-hand side.
The "product" ##\hat p\hat x## is defined as follows: For all ##\psi:\mathbb R\to\mathbb C## in the domain of ##\hat x##, such that ##\hat x\psi## is in the domain of ##\hat p##, we define
$$(\hat p\hat x)\psi=\hat p(\hat x\psi).$$ This definition is the reason why we don't need to insert parentheses when we write things like ##\hat p\hat x\psi##.

The other product ##\hat x\hat p## is defined similarly. The domain of the commutator is the intersection of the domains of ##\hat p\hat x## and ##\hat x\hat p##. Note that this means that the identity operator that we don't write out on the right-hand side of ##[\hat x,\hat p]=i\hbar## is the identity operator on that set, not the identity operator on the full set of square-integrable functions.

Now, let's use the definitions to evaluate ##\hat p\hat x\psi(x)##, where ##\psi## is an arbitrary member of the domain of ##[x,p]##.
$$\hat p\hat x\psi(x)=\hat p(\hat x\psi)(x)=-i(\hat x\psi)'(x)=-i\frac{d}{dx}(x\psi(x)).$$ The notation on the right means "-i times the derivative of the map ##y\mapsto y\psi(y)## evaluated at x". The definition of ##\hat x## tells us that that map is precisely what we denote by ##\hat x\psi##, so the right-hand side above means ##-i(\hat x\psi)'(x)##.

The rest of the calculation that proves the identity ##[x,p]=i## goes like this:
$$
\begin{align}&=-i\big(\psi(x)+x\psi'(x)\big)=-i\big(\psi(x)+\hat x(\psi')(x)\big)=-i\big(\psi(x)+\hat x(i\hat p\psi)(x)\big)\\
&=-i\psi(x)+\hat x\hat p\psi(x)=(-i+\hat x\hat p)\psi(x).
\end{align}$$ I used that ##\hat x## is linear here. I haven't proved that, but it's easy to do, using the definition of ##\hat x##.
 
  • #17
Fredrik said:
I suspect that most people who are new to this don't fully understand how results like ##\hat p\hat x\psi(x)=\frac{d}{dx}(x\psi(x))## follow from the definitions, so I will explain that. I will only consider the 1-dimensional case here, so our wavefunctions are functions from ##\mathbb R## into ##\mathbb C##. First note that when ##\psi## denotes such a function, ##\psi(x)## denotes a complex number in its range. So ##\psi(x)## never denotes a function. It's always just a number. This means that an operator like ##\hat x## or ##\hat p## acts on ##\psi##, never on ##\psi(x)##.

##\hat x## is defined by specifying a set of functions that will be its domain, and then specifying ##\hat x\psi## for all ##\psi## in that set. Since ##\hat x\psi## is a function with domain ##\mathbb R##, the way to do this is to specify ##\hat x\psi(x)## for all ##x\in\mathbb R##. (Note that ##\hat x\psi(x)## means ##(\hat x\psi)(x)##. ##\hat x## acts on ##\psi## and ##\hat x\psi## acts on ##x##).

The domain of ##\hat x## is the set of all square-integrable ##\psi:\mathbb R\to\mathbb C## such that the map ##x\mapsto x\psi(x)## is square-integrable. For each ##\psi## in that set, we define
$$\hat x\psi(y)=y\psi(y),$$ for all ##y\in\mathbb R.## (Note that it never matters what variable symbol is used in a "for all" statement. I chose to use y instead of x because I wanted to make it clear that we don't have to use the same symbol that's used in the notation for the position operator).

##\hat p## can be defined without even mentioning a variable (like x) that represents a real number. The domain of ##\hat p## is the set of all square-integrable ##\psi:\mathbb R\to\mathbb C## such that ##\psi'## is square-integrable. For all such ##\psi##, we define
$$\hat p\psi=-i\psi'.$$ I like to use units such that ##\hbar=1##. That's why I don't include ##\hbar## explicitly on the right-hand side.
The "product" ##\hat p\hat x## is defined as follows: For all ##\psi:\mathbb R\to\mathbb C## in the domain of ##\hat x##, such that ##\hat x\psi## is in the domain of ##\hat p##, we define
$$(\hat p\hat x)\psi=\hat p(\hat x\psi).$$ This definition is the reason why we don't need to insert parentheses when we write things like ##\hat p\hat x\psi##.

The other product ##\hat x\hat p## is defined similarly. The domain of the commutator is the intersection of the domains of ##\hat p\hat x## and ##\hat x\hat p##. Note that this means that the identity operator that we don't write out on the right-hand side of ##[\hat x,\hat p]=i\hbar## is the identity operator on that set, not the identity operator on the full set of square-integrable functions.

Now, let's use the definitions to evaluate ##\hat p\hat x\psi(x)##, where ##\psi## is an arbitrary member of the domain of ##[x,p]##.
$$\hat p\hat x\psi(x)=\hat p(\hat x\psi)(x)=-i(\hat x\psi)'(x)=-i\frac{d}{dx}(x\psi(x)).$$ The notation on the right means "-i times the derivative of the map ##y\mapsto y\psi(y)## evaluated at x". The definition of ##\hat x## tells us that that map is precisely what we denote by ##\hat x\psi##, so the right-hand side above means ##-i(\hat x\psi)'(x)##.

The rest of the calculation that proves the identity ##[x,p]=i## goes like this:
$$
\begin{align}&=-i\big(\psi(x)+x\psi'(x)\big)=-i\big(\psi(x)+\hat x(\psi')(x)\big)=-i\big(\psi(x)+\hat x(i\hat p\psi)(x)\big)\\
&=-i\psi(x)+\hat x\hat p\psi(x)=(-i+\hat x\hat p)\psi(x).
\end{align}$$ I used that ##\hat x## is linear here. I haven't proved that, but it's easy to do, using the definition of ##\hat x##.

That's a perfect explanation.
Thank you very much!
 
  • #18
Elekko said:
That's a perfect explanation.
Thank you very much!
You're welcome. Thanks for letting me know that you read it and understood it.

Here's a slightly different version that doesn't even use the d/dx notation. I will not include all the information about domains and stuff this time. Here I denotes the function that takes x to x. To avoid confusion, the identity operator will be denoted by 1 instead of I. We define two operators, Q and D.

Qf=If (This means that for all real numbers x, Qf(x)=(If)(x)=I(x)f(x)=xf(x), so the Q we have defined here is the position operator).
Df=f' (We define the momentum operator by P=-iD, so D=iP).

\begin{align}
DQf(x) &=(If)'(x)=I'(x)f(x)+I(x)f'(x) =f(x)+xf'(x)=f(x)+QDf(x) =(f+QDf)(x) \\
DQf &=f+QDf=(1+QD)f\\
DQ &= 1+QD\\
\left[Q,P\right] &= \left[Q,-iD\right]=-i\left[Q,D\right]=-i(-1)=i.
\end{align}
 
Back
Top