How to Solve Commutators Using the Jacobian?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating commutators in quantum mechanics, specifically [px², x], [px, x²], and others. The original poster mentions two methods for solving these commutators: using explicit operator expressions with test functions and applying the Jacobi identity. There is some confusion regarding the terminology, particularly between the Jacobi identity and the Jacobian.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of the Jacobi identity and its relevance to the problem. Some express uncertainty about why it should be applied in this context. Others suggest using different identities for commutators. There are questions about the placement of test functions in relation to operators and how to handle terms involving derivatives.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their attempts and calculations. Some have provided partial results and are seeking clarification on specific steps. There is no clear consensus on the best approach to take, and multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note a lack of resources explaining commutators and the Jacobi identity, which adds to the confusion. There are also references to homework constraints that may limit the exploration of certain methods.

  • #61
That's only the first term (with some typos, I hope). You still have to subtract off the result from the xp term.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Now I'm completely lost. I repeated that calculation and got the same result, I cannot see the mistake. I thought that xp term was included in that ##-i\hbar\frac{\partial g}{\partial x}## combination?
 
  • #63
my mistake again, forgot about the second term in the bracket. But I cannot use g substitution, since x is on the left side of the operator, I can only use f. What can I do with this?
 
  • #64
Try starting over from the beginning now. You began with
$$[p^2,x]\psi = (p[p,x]+[p,x]p)\psi = p[p,x]\psi + [p,x]p\psi.$$ Now redo your calculations for ##p[p,x]\psi## and ##[p,x]p\psi##.
 
  • #65
the result for the first term was correct, it came out as ##-\hbar^2\psi\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}##. I just have problem with the second term, because I can't think of the solution with changed order of the operator...how to bite this?
 
Last edited:
  • #66
I think I finally did it. Here it goes: ##-i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial x}(-i\hbar\frac{\partial x\psi}{\partial x}+i\hbar x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})+(-i\hbar\frac{\partial xf}{\partial x}+i\hbar x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x})##, where we let ##f=-i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}##. Then it goes on:
##-i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial x}(-i\hbar(x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}+\psi\frac{\partial x}{\partial x})+i\hbar x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})+(-i\hbar(x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+f\frac{\partial x}{\partial x})+i\hbar x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x})##, proceeding
##-i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial x}(-i\hbar x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}-i\hbar\psi+i\hbar x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})+(i\hbar x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}-i\hbar f+i\hbar x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x})##, and then
##-\hbar^2\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}+(-i\hbar f)=-\hbar^2\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}-(-i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})=-\hbar^2\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}-\hbar^2\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}=-2\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}##.
Please tell me that this time I am right.
 
  • #67
Just a few minor errors, probably typos, and you're not quite done.
Rorshach said:
I think I finally did it. Here it goes:
$$-i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial x}(-i\hbar\frac{\partial x\psi}{\partial x}+i\hbar x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})+(-i\hbar\frac{\partial xf}{\partial x}+i\hbar x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}),$$ where we let ##f=-i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}##. Then it goes on:
$$-i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial x}(-i\hbar(x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}+\psi\frac{\partial x}{\partial x})+i\hbar x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})+(-i\hbar(x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+f\frac{\partial x}{\partial x})+i\hbar x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x})$$
$$-i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial x}(-i\hbar x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}-i\hbar\psi+i\hbar x\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})+({\color{red}-}i\hbar x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}-i\hbar f+i\hbar x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x})$$
$$-\hbar^2\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}+(-i\hbar f)
= \hbar^2\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}-{\color{red} {(i\hbar)}}(-i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x})
= -\hbar^2\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}-\hbar^2\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}
= -2\hbar^{\color{red}2} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}$$.
Please tell me that this time I am right.
Now use the fact that ##-\hbar^2 = (-ih)^2## and rewrite the final result in terms of ##\hat{p}_x## to show that ##[\hat{p}_x^2,\hat{x}] = (-i\hbar)2\hat{p}_x##.
 
  • #68
I don't quite understand what do You mean by presenting it in terms of ##p_x##, I thought that my calculations (without those stupid typos) are enough to show the correct result?
 
  • #69
Well, ask yourself what you're trying to show. The problem asks you to calculate ##[\hat{p}_x^2,\hat{x}]## which is equal to ##-2i\hbar \hat{p}_x##. You haven't shown that. You've shown that when you work in the position basis, the action of ##[\hat{p}_x^2,\hat{x}]## on some arbitrary function ##\psi(x)## is to differentiate it and multiply it by ##-2\hbar^2##. You need to show that that's equivalent to applying ##\hat{p}## and multiplying by ##-2i\hbar##.
 
  • #70
So basically I should take function ##\psi(x)##, act on it with ##\hat{p}## and multiply it by ##-2i\hbar##?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K