I Multiplying three vector operators

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kashmir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators Vector
Kashmir
Messages
466
Reaction score
74
Given vector operators as
$$\mathbf{A} = (A_{1}, A_{2} ,A_{3}) $$

$$\mathbf{B} = (B_{1}, B_{2} ,B_{3}) $$

$$\mathbf{C} = (C_{1}, C_{2} ,C_{3}) $$

I know that for two vector operators $$\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Q} \mathbf{P} = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^{3} Q_{\alpha} P_{\alpha}
\end{equation}$$

What is $$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}$$ in component form?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kashmir said:
Given vector operators as
$$\mathbf{A} = (A_{1}, A_{2} ,A_{3}) $$

$$\mathbf{B} = (B_{1}, B_{2} ,B_{3}) $$

$$\mathbf{C} = (C_{1}, C_{2} ,C_{3}) $$

I know that for two vector operators $$\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Q} \mathbf{P} = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^{3} Q_{\alpha} P_{\alpha}
\end{equation}$$

What is $$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}$$ in component form?
You didn't specify what kind of product you are looking at. (There are several.) But from appearances you are doing an inner (or "dot") product.

So
##\displaystyle \textbf{A} \cdot \textbf{B} = \sum_{i = 1}^3 A_i B_i = \lambda##, which is a scalar, so

##\left ( \textbf{A} \cdot \textbf{B} \right ) \textbf{C} = \left ( \begin{matrix} \lambda C_1 \\ \lambda C_2 \\ \lambda C_3 \end{matrix} \right )##

There is also the cross product, but you have to specify which pair you are multiplying first as the cross product is not associative. And finally, there's the tensor product, but that one's easy as there isn't any mixing: ##\textbf{A} \otimes \textbf{B} \otimes \textbf{C}##. There isn't really much of a component form for this, just
##\left ( \begin{matrix} A_1 \\ A_2 \\ A_3 \end{matrix} \right ) \otimes \left ( \begin{matrix} B_1 \\ B_2 \\ B_3 \end{matrix} \right ) \otimes \left ( \begin{matrix} C_1 \\ C_2 \\ C_3 \end{matrix} \right )##

-Dan
 
Kashmir said:
Given vector operators as
$$\mathbf{A} = (A_{1}, A_{2} ,A_{3}) $$

$$\mathbf{B} = (B_{1}, B_{2} ,B_{3}) $$

$$\mathbf{C} = (C_{1}, C_{2} ,C_{3}) $$

I know that for two vector operators $$\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Q} \mathbf{P} = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^{3} Q_{\alpha} P_{\alpha}
\end{equation}$$

What is $$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}$$ in component form?
I wouldn't write it this way because it is ambiguous. I would write $$\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Q} \cdot \mathbf{P} = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^{3} Q_{\alpha} P_{\alpha}
\end{equation}$$ for clarity. This distinguishes between an operation ##\mathbf{Q} \cdot \mathbf{P}## which takes two vectors and produces a scalar and an operation ##\lambda \mathbf{Q}## which takes a vector and a scalar and produces a vector.

Note that ##(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{B}) \mathbf{C} \ne \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{B} \cdot \mathbf{C})## and also note that ##\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathbf{C}## does not exist nor does ##\mathbf{A} \mathbf{B} \mathbf{C}##
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and Kashmir
Thank you.

I'm looking for the product which appears as the result of quantisation rule which takes the classical expression to the quantum one.

Suppose the classical quantites we have are $$\mathscr A_1(\mathbf{r,p,t})=\mathbf{r(p.r)}$$

$$\mathscr A_2(\mathbf{r,p,t})=\mathbf{(r.p)r}$$

What will be the quantum operators ##\mathbf A_1##,##\mathbf A_2## corresponding to ##\mathscr A_1## and ##\mathscr A_2##?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Back
Top