I Non-commuting operators on the same eigenfunctions

TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13
In Griffiths chapter 4 (pg. 179-180) there is an example (Ex. 4.3) that details the expectation value of ## S_x ##, ##S_y##, and ##S_z## of a spin 1/2 particle in a magnetic field. In this example, they find an eigenvector of ## H## (which commutes with ## S_z##) but then use this same eigenvector to compute the expectation value of both ##S_x## and ##S_y##, too. But the three spin operators do not commute. They have different eigenvectors. So what exactly is the significance of computing the expectation values of the two other spin components with this eigenvector that is not an eigenvector of those 2 operators themselves?

I seem to be missing something very fundamental here. What exactly does it mean for an operator to act on a state that is not its own eigenvector (i.e. what is the physical meaning of this value)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
An operator ##A## on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space acts on all vectors, not only on the eigenvectors. The eigenvectors are just the special vectors ##\psi## for which the image ##A\psi## is parallel to ##\psi##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes TheCanadian
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!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top