Uncertainty Relations and Functions of Operators

  • Thread starter Dathascome
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Qm
In summary, More QM trouble: -The authors are trying to derive the uncertainty relation in a book, and for part of it they say that [A,B]~[A,B] -For the first problem, they have that A and B are hermitian operators and their expected values with respect to a normalized state vector /S> are <A>=<S/A\S>-For the second problem, they have that functions of operators do not commute, [A,B] not equal to 0, which implies that [B,F(A)] (some function of A) is also not equal to 0.-They then proceed to say that e^A*
  • #1
Dathascome
55
0
More QM trouble:(

Hi there,
I'm having a bit of trouble with something dealing with functions of operators and commutators. It's two different examples actually. For the first one I have that A and B are hermitian operators and their expected values with respect to a normalized state vector /S> are <A>=<S/A\S>
where [tex]
\Delta
[/tex]A=sqrt(A-<A>), and similarly for B.
Now here's the thing I'm having trouble with. They're trying to derive the uncertainty relation in this book, and for part of it they say that [[tex]
\Delta
[/tex]A,[tex]
\Delta
[/tex]B]=[A,B]
(these are the commutators)
I know it's probably something really obvious but for some reason I don't see it. I tried actually writing out the full expression for the commutator but I don't see why they would be equal.

As for the second problem I'm having, it has to do with functions of operators. Again I have 2 operators (this time not necessarily hermitian) that do not commute, [A,B] not equal to 0, which implies that [B,F(A)] (some function of A) is also not equal to 0. So here comes the parts I'm not sure of, they say that e^A*e^Bnot equal to e^(A+B), which I don't see why. How could I show this using a taylor expansion. I tried but didn't really get what I should have.
They then proceed to say that e^A*e^b = e^(A+B)*e^[A,B]/2

and also,
e^A*B*e^-A= B+ [A,B] + 1/2![A,[A,B]]+ 1/3![A,[A,[A,B]]]+...

neither of which I fully understand...I mean, I can see that the last one is a taylor series but I don't fully understand either of the last two things.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Forgive me for not noticing that thread. Suprisingly that is the problem I was looking at. The thing is it didn't really answer my question. I'm sorry I know that there's probably something really stupid that I'm missing but I don't see this
the commutator
[tex][\Delta A,~ \Delta B] = [A - \langle A \rangle I,~B - \langle B \rangle I] = [A,B] ~~~-~(4)[/tex]
I do not get for some reason.
Writing out the commutator
[tex]
AB-A\langle B \rangle I - \langle A \rangle I B + \langle A \rangle I \langle B \rangle I -BA + B\langle A\rangle I +\langle B \rangle I A- \langle B \rangle I \langle A \rangle I
[/tex]

So I can pick out the AB-BA=[A,B], but what happens to all the rest of that stuff there?
OlderDan, thanks for trying to point me in the right direction, any further help would be great.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Dathascome said:
Writing out the commutator
[tex]
AB-A\langle B \rangle I - \langle A \rangle I B + \langle A \rangle I \langle B \rangle I -BA + B\langle A\rangle I +\langle B \rangle I A- \langle B \rangle I \langle A \rangle I
[/tex]

So I can pick out the AB-BA=[A,B], but what happens to all the rest of that stuff there?
Notice that [itex]\langle X \rangle[/itex] is just a scalar and [itex]IX = XI = X [/itex], so all the other terms cancel off nicely.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Damnit, I knew it was something really simple. Those are things that always get me, the obvious or somewhat obvious things :cry:

Is it something just as obvious that I missed concerning my second question with the exponentials?
 
  • #6
Dathascome said:
So here comes the parts I'm not sure of, they say that e^A*e^Bnot equal to e^(A+B), which I don't see why. How could I show this using a taylor expansion. I tried but didn't really get what I should have.
They then proceed to say that e^A*e^b = e^(A+B)*e^[A,B]/2

and also,
e^A*B*e^-A= B+ [A,B] + 1/2![A,[A,B]]+ 1/3![A,[A,[A,B]]]+...

neither of which I fully understand...I mean, I can see that the last one is a taylor series but I don't fully understand either of the last two things.

First, Taylor expand the exponentials :

[tex]a^A \cdot e^B = (I + A + \frac {A^2}{2!} + \frac {A^3}{3!} + ...)(I + B + \frac {B^2}{2!} + \frac {B^3}{3!} + ...)[/tex]
[tex]=I + A + B + AB + \frac {A^2 + B^2}{2!} + ...
= I + (A+B) + \frac {A^2 + B^2 + 2AB}{2!} + ... [/tex]

But notice that, for instance
[tex](A+B)^2 = A^2 + B^2+AB+BA = A^2 + B^2+2AB+BA-AB=(A+B)^2+[B,A] \neq (A+B)^2 [/tex]

Use this above and hopefully, the result will follow. :smile:
 

1. What is "QM Troubles: A Deeper Look"?

"QM Troubles: A Deeper Look" is a scientific research article that delves deeper into the challenges and controversies surrounding quantum mechanics, a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of particles at the subatomic level.

2. What are some of the main issues addressed in "QM Troubles: A Deeper Look"?

The article discusses several key problems and debates within the field of quantum mechanics, including the measurement problem, the role of consciousness, and the interpretation of quantum probabilities.

3. Who wrote "QM Troubles: A Deeper Look"?

The article was written by a team of scientists and researchers, including several prominent figures in the field of quantum mechanics such as Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Erwin Schrödinger.

4. What new insights does "QM Troubles: A Deeper Look" offer?

The article presents a comprehensive and critical analysis of the current state of quantum mechanics and offers new perspectives and potential solutions to some of the most perplexing issues. It also highlights the need for further research and exploration in this field.

5. Is "QM Troubles: A Deeper Look" accessible to non-scientists?

While the article is primarily targeted towards a scientific audience, it is written in a clear and concise manner that can be easily understood by non-scientists with a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. It may require some background knowledge in physics to fully grasp the concepts discussed in the article.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
232
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
104
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
142
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
187
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
485
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
998
Back
Top