How to Simplify Commutators Using Levi-Civita Symbol?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around simplifying commutators using the Levi-Civita symbol in the context of angular momentum. Participants are examining the implications of index notation and the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol and Kronecker delta.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the use of indices in the context of the Levi-Civita symbol and questioning the validity of using the same index for different purposes. There are attempts to understand how certain terms vanish in the summation process and the implications of the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the use of indices and the properties of the symbols involved. Some participants express confusion about specific steps, while others suggest potential resolutions and clarifications regarding the signs and terms in the equations.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of potential misunderstandings regarding index usage and the implications of the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol. Participants are working within the constraints of the problem as presented, with references to uploaded images for further context.

KostasV
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
image.jpg

Homework Statement


The problem statement can be seen in the picture i uploaded.

Homework Equations


-

The Attempt at a Solution


The attempt to the solution can be seen in the picture i uploaded.
I reached to the A and i don't know how to proceed to the solution that is given below. How does the minus and δkj disappear?
If i do the double summation on k and j I think that every term gets zero either because of εijk (levi-cevita) or δkj (kronecker)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You used the index j twice: once for the index on x and then again as a dummy summation index when writing out the angular momentum in terms of the levi-civita symbol.
 
TSny said:
You used the index j twice: once for the index on x and then again as a dummy summation index when writing out the angular momentum in terms of the levi-civita symbol.
I can't see why this is wrong ... :/
 
TSny said:
You used the index j twice: once for the index on x and then again as a dummy summation index when writing out the angular momentum in terms of the levi-civita symbol.
Moreover , if i use , let's say the index m on x (not on x that comes from angular momentum , yes on x that is alone) , then i still have the minus on ih bar ... My solutions say that it should not be there ...
 
image.jpg
Ok i think i understand why i can't have the same index on these two .
Moreover i think i found how i get rid of this minus ...
I must use the fact that εijk=-εikj wright ?
Is now the solution correct ? (Uploaded photo)
 
Yes. That looks very good.
 
TSny said:
Yes. That looks very good.
Thank you very much for your help :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K