Pauli Equation - Simple operator algebra question

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around operator algebra in the context of the Pauli Equation, which is a generalization of the Schrödinger equation incorporating spin corrections in an electromagnetic field. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the non-commuting nature of operators and the implications for the cross product involving momentum and vector potential operators.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand why certain terms do not contribute to the operator algebra, specifically questioning the role of the term proportional to the cross product of the vector potential and momentum. Some participants discuss operator priorities and vector calculus rules relevant to the problem.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some providing insights from textbooks and clarifying operator action priorities. There is a recognition of potential misprints and confirmations of derivations, but no explicit consensus has been reached regarding the original poster's confusion.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the original poster's struggle with vector calculus and operator priorities, indicating a possible gap in foundational knowledge that may affect their understanding of the current problem.

karkas
Messages
131
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I am watching a course on Relativistic Quantum Mechanics to freshen up, and I have found to have some issues regarding simple operator algebra. This particular issue on the Pauli Equation (generalization of the Schrödinger equation that includes spin corrections) in an electromagnetic field, arises from the cross product of a linear combination of operators, as shown below (and in the video link - time 18:18)



I understand that when the operators don't commute, the cross product isn't zero, but how is it shown explicitly that the only non-trivial effect is the \vec{p}\times\vec{A} that survives? What about the other term diagonal in the two operators?

Homework Equations


\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)=\frac{i\hbar e}{c}<br /> \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}

The Attempt at a Solution


I've been arguing why the second term \propto \vec{A}\times\vec{p} won't contribute but can't seem to reach it. Thinking about a crutch function didn't quite help as well. I'm pretty sure this is simple but can't think of it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Seems I've pretty much forgot all of my vector calculus as well as operator priorities. I got the right thing though after some research on my textbooks

Rule 7 on Griffiths E-M: \vec{\nabla}\times\left(f\cdot\vec{A}\right)=f\left(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}\right)-\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{\nabla}\cdot f\right)
Also the priority of operator action starts from the left and encompasses all through to right, so our action should be:
\left[\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\right]g=-\frac{e}{c}\vec{p}\times\left(\vec{A}g\right)-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{p}g\right)=i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\vec{\nabla}\times\left(\vec{A}g\right)+i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{\nabla}g\right)=i\hbar\frac{e}{c}g\left(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}\right)-i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{\nabla}g\right)+i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\times\left(\vec{\nabla}g\right)=i\hbar\frac{e}{c}\left(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}\right)g

Correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise I think it's done with.
 
If the vector multiplication in the left side of
$$
\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)=\frac{i\hbar e}{c}
\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}
$$
is actually a cross product, then your derivation is correct.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
If the vector multiplication in the left side of
$$
\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)\left(\vec{p}-\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}\right)=\frac{i\hbar e}{c}
\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}
$$
is actually a cross product, then your derivation is correct.

Ah, a misprint, will fix, thank you for the confirmation!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K