Mistake in proof regarding degeneracy property

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a proof regarding the degeneracy property of eigenkets in quantum mechanics, specifically involving operators A and B. The theorem states that if the eigenkets of operator A are not degenerate, then an eigenket |\alpha> is also an eigenket of operator B, given the commutation relation [A, B]=0. The mistake identified in the proof occurs in CASE 2, where the author incorrectly generalizes the relationship between eigenkets of A and B, leading to a false conclusion about degeneracy. The flaw lies in assuming that all eigenkets of A can be expressed in terms of B, which is not necessarily true.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics, specifically eigenkets and operators.
  • Familiarity with commutation relations, particularly [A, B]=0.
  • Knowledge of degeneracy in quantum systems.
  • Experience with proofs in linear algebra and operator theory.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of commutation relations in quantum mechanics.
  • Explore the concept of degeneracy in eigenstates and its significance in quantum systems.
  • Learn about the construction of eigenkets and their relationships with operators.
  • Investigate counterexamples in quantum mechanics that illustrate degeneracy and non-degeneracy.
USEFUL FOR

Quantum mechanics students, physicists working with operator theory, and anyone interested in the properties of eigenstates and their implications in quantum systems.

HJ Farnsworth
Messages
126
Reaction score
1
Greetings,

I was trying to prove a theorem regarding degeneracy, and I succeeded. However, I also proved the converse of the if-then part of the theorem (underlined below), which I know is wrong. I can't spot my mistake though.

The theorem and my proof are written below - could someone please point out my mistake?

Theorem:

Let [A, B]=0 and let A|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>=a|[itex]\alpha[/itex]> (capital letters are operators, lowercase letters are scalars). If the eigenkets of A are not degenerate, then |[itex]\alpha[/itex]> is also an eigenket of B.

Proof:

Using the given relations,

AB|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>=BA|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>=Ba|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>=aB|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>,

so that |[itex]\alpha[/itex]> and B|[itex]\alpha[/itex]> are both eigenkets of A with eigenvalue a.

CASE 1 - the theorem: Assume B|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>[itex]\neq[/itex]b|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>. Then B|[itex]\alpha[/itex]> is not writeable as a constant b times |[itex]\alpha[/itex]>, so that |[itex]\alpha[/itex]> and B|[itex]\alpha[/itex]> are degenerate eigenkets of A. Therefore...

...If |[itex]\alpha[/itex]> is not an eigenket of B, then the eigenkets of A are degenerate,

or equivalently,

...If the eigenkets of A are not degenerate, then |[itex]\alpha[/itex]> is also an eigenket of B.

CASE 2 - the converse: Assume B|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>[itex]=[/itex]b|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>. Then the eigenkets of A, |[itex]\alpha[/itex]> and B|[itex]\alpha[/itex]>, are the same except for multiplication by a constant, and so do not qualify as degenerate eigenkets of A. Therefore...

...If |[itex]\alpha[/itex]> is an eigenket of B, then the eigenkets of A are not degenerate,

or equivalently,

...If the eigenkets of A are degenerate, then |[itex]\alpha[/itex]> is not an eigenket of B.

The conclusion I reached in CASE 2 is just wrong. I can think of several examples where it is contradicted. For instance, letting A=J2 and B=Jz, eigenkets of A can be written as |j,mi>. These are degenerate eigenkets of A (one fore each -j\leqmi\leqj, and are simultaneous eigenkets of B.

What did I do wrong in CASE 2?

By the way, I am just looking for a description of my mistake, not a proof of something contradicting my conclusion (ie., I know the correct answer, I don't know what's wrong about my wrong answer). It's one of those obnoxious situations where I know proofs and examples that contradict my answer, but I'm not sure what the probably-obvious mistake I made in finding my answer is.

Actually, at the end of writing this post, it occurred to me that my mistake is probably that in CASE 2, I construct eigenkets of A using B and generalize my result to all eigenkets of A, which might not be constructible using B in this manner. I've already got the whole post written, though, so I may as well put it up. Could someone confirm, is that my mistake?

Thanks for any help you can give.

-HJ Farnsworth
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah, looks to me like the flaw is in case 2. There may be eigenkets of A which cannot be written as [itex]B|\alpha\rangle[/itex], so you can't prove that there is no degeneracy.
 
Last edited:
Great, thanks for the response.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K