In QM operators, why [YPz,YPx]=0, [ZPy,ZPy]=0 [X,Py]=0 [Y,Pz]=0, etc

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mudyos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators Qm
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the commutation relations of quantum mechanical operators, specifically examining why certain pairs of operators commute, such as [YPz, YPx] and [X, Py]. Participants explore the implications of these relations and the mathematical reasoning behind them.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the commutation relations, specifically why [YPz, YPx] = 0 and [ZPy, ZPy] = 0.
  • There is a discussion about the commutator of any operator with itself, with one participant suggesting that [ZPy, ZPy] = 0 is trivial.
  • One participant asks for a proof of [X, Px] = iħ and suggests that this might be an axiom, leading to a debate about its foundational status in quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant provides a derivation involving the p-operator in x-space and its implications for the commutation relations, particularly [X, Py].
  • Participants engage in detailed calculations to show that [Y, Px] = 0, but express confusion about the conditions under which this holds.
  • One participant argues that the derivative of the Y operator with respect to x is zero, supporting the claim that [Y, Px] = 0.
  • Another participant notes the physical interpretation of commuting observables, suggesting that if certain observables commute, there exist states where they can be simultaneously measured.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the foundational nature of certain commutation relations, with some treating them as axiomatic while others seek proofs. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications and interpretations of these relations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the operators and their definitions, as well as the mathematical steps involved in proving the commutation relations. Some calculations are left incomplete or unclear, contributing to the ongoing debate.

mudyos
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
in the quantum mechanical operators :
why :
[YPz,YPx]=0
[ZPy,ZPy]=0
[X,Py]=0
[Y,Pz]=0
[Z,Py]=0
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For the second:
What is the commutator of any operator with itself?

For the last three:
Can you prove that [X Px] = i h ?
Now do the same argument for [X Py].

For the first one:
Reduce it to Y^2 [Pz Px] using that [Y Pz] = [Y Px] = 0 (which you have just proven) and calculate [Pz Px] in the same way.
 
Last edited:
Can you prove that [X Px] = i h ?

Isn't [X Px] = i h an axiom, CompuChip?
 
pellman said:
Isn't [X Px] = i h an axiom, CompuChip?

Usually one thinks of this as something that nature implements (through de Broglie's relation). If one accepts it as a mathematical axiom a priori then the question "why?" wouldn't make much sense indeed.
 
thank
 
Hmm, yes it is usually taken as an axiom isn't it.
But actually the way I first learned it was: the p-operator in x-space can be written as [tex]- i \hbar \partial/\partial x[/tex]
and from this you can show that (indeed)
[tex][x p_x] f = - i \hbar x \partial f/\partial x + i \hbar \partial/\partial x (x f) = \cdots = i \hbar f[/tex]
and it was this reasoning that I wanted muydos to continue to [X Py] (which would then of course give 0).
 
[Y,Px] = YPx-PxY
PxY=
[tex]P_x Y f(x) = i \hbar \partial /\partial x Y f(x)[/tex]
[tex]P_x Y f(x) = i \hbar Y \partial f/\partial x + i \hbar \partial Y/\partial x f(x)[/tex]
YPx=
[tex]Y P_x f(x) = i \hbar Y \partial f/\partial x[/tex]

[Y,Px] = YPx-PxY
[tex]= i \hbar Y \partial f/\partial x - i \hbar Y \partial f/\partial x - i \hbar \partial Y/\partial x f(x)[/tex]

[Y,Px] = [tex]- i \hbar \partial Y/\partial x f(x)[/tex]
but
[Y,Px] = 0

[tex]- i \hbar \partial Y/\partial x f(x) = ?[/tex] is thes =0 . why?
 
why [Y,Px] = 0

[Y,Px] = YPx-PxY
PxY=
[tex]P_x Y f(x) = i \hbar \partial /\partial x Y f(x)[/tex]
[tex]P_x Y f(x) = i \hbar Y \partial f/\partial x + i \hbar \partial Y/\partial x f(x)[/tex]
YPx=
[tex]Y P_x f(x) = i \hbar Y \partial f/\partial x[/tex]

[Y,Px] = YPx-PxY
[tex]= i \hbar Y \partial f/\partial x - i \hbar Y \partial f/\partial x - i \hbar \partial Y/\partial x f(x)[/tex]

[Y,Px] = [tex]- i \hbar \partial Y/\partial x f(x)[/tex]
but
[Y,Px] = 0

[tex]- i \hbar \partial Y/\partial x f(x) = ?[/tex] is thes =0 . why?
 
dY/dx is zero because this "Y" is a position operator for the y coordinate. In other words, one can think of "Y" as a function of only y, and no other variable. Thus, its derivative with respect to other variable, such as x, is zero.

Zz.
 
  • #10
thak you
 
  • #11
physically..if certain obsevables commute, there exist states for which they all have particular values..(there exist eigenstate of p_x, y, |p_x`>|y`> having their eigenvalues p_x` and y` respectively..) So a mesurement of p_x, y would give only particular value p_x`, y` respectively..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
28K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K