Potential commutes with position?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter syang9
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Position Potential
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the commutation relations between the potential energy operator and the position operator in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the conditions under which these operators commute, particularly focusing on whether the potential depends solely on position or also on momentum. The conversation includes theoretical implications and mathematical representations relevant to quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the potential operator commutes with the position operator when the potential is a function of position only, while it does not commute if it depends on momentum.
  • Others argue that the commutation arises because both operators are multiplication operators, which generally commute unless in more complex algebraic contexts.
  • A participant explains that if the potential does not depend on the particle's motion, the order of measurement does not matter, leading to commutation.
  • One participant presents mathematical representations of the operators and discusses the conditions under which the commutator vanishes in different representations.
  • Another participant raises a concern about the representation of the potential operator in momentum space, suggesting that it may not behave as a simple multiplication operator.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of the commutation relations being independent of the representation used, emphasizing that if an operator commutes in one representation, it does so in all representations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions for commutation between the potential and position operators, with no consensus reached on the implications of these conditions or the validity of the mathematical representations discussed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings regarding the representation of operators in different bases and the assumptions made about the nature of the potential function.

syang9
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Why does the potential energy (operator?) commute with the position operator? Is it because we deal only with real potentials?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The potential operator commutes with the position operator when the potential operator is a function of position only, it will not commute if it is a function of the momenta as is seen in nuclear physics.
 
You can think of the potential operator and the position operator as measurements. If the potential doesn't depend on the particles motion, then it wouldn't matter in which order you measure them. But if the potential depends on the momentum of the particle, then they don't commute because the measurement of the particles position affects its momentum.
 
syang9 said:
Why does the potential energy (operator?) commute with the position operator? Is it because we deal only with real potentials?

They commute because they are both multiplication operators (assuming potential depends only on position), and multiplication operators always commute (unless you have some more exotic algebra). It does not matter if the multiplication operators are real or complex.

For given measurable function [itex]V:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}[/itex] the potential operator is

[tex] \hat{V}:D(\hat{V})\to L^2(\mathbb{R}^3),\quad (\hat{V}\psi)(x)=V(x)\psi(x)\quad\forall x\in\mathbb{R}^3[/tex]

and the position operator (or a component of it, k=1,2,3), is

[tex] \hat{x}_k:D(\hat{x}_k)\to L^2(\mathbb{R}^3),\quad<br /> (\hat{x}_k\psi)(x)=x_k\psi(x)\quad\forall x\in\mathbb{R}^3[/tex]

Here the domains [itex]D(\hat{V})[/itex] and [itex]D(\hat{x}_k)[/itex] are some subsets of [itex]L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)[/itex]. For all [itex]x\in\mathbb{R}^3[/itex]

[tex] (\hat{V}\hat{x}_k\psi)(x)\;=\;V(x)(\hat{x}_k\psi)(x)\;=\;V(x)x_k\psi(x)\;=\;x_kV(x)\psi(x)\; =\;x_k(\hat{V}\psi)(x)\;=\;(\hat{x}_k\hat{V}\psi)(x).[/tex]

The key step is V(x)x=xV(x), which is justified because x and V(x) are merely numbers. Therefore

[tex] \hat{V}\hat{x}_k\psi = \hat{x}_k\hat{V}\psi,[/tex]

whenever [itex]\psi[/itex] is in domain of these composition maps.
 
Last edited:
syang9 said:
Why does the potential energy (operator?) commute with the position operator? Is it because we deal only with real potentials?


The commutator [itex]\left[\hat{x},\hat{V}\right][/itex] depends on the representation of the operator algebra
[tex]\left[\hat{p},\hat{x}\right] = i[/tex]

1) In the x-representation :

[tex]\hat{x} \rightarrow x[/tex]
[tex]\hat{p} \rightarrow - i \partial_{x}[/tex]

Schrödinger equation is a differential equation

[tex]i \partial_{t} \Psi (x) = \left[ - \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}} + V(x) \right] \Psi (x)[/tex]

where [itex]V(\hat{x}) = V(x)[/itex] is an ordinary function of x. Therefore

[tex]\left[ \hat{x}, \hat{V}\right] = 0[/tex]

2) In the momentum-representation :

[tex]\hat{x} \rightarrow i \frac{\partial}{\partial p}[/tex]
[tex]\hat{p} \rightarrow p[/tex]

Schrödinger equation becomes an integral equation

[tex]i\partial_{t} \Psi (p) = p^{2} \Psi(p) + \int d \bar{p} V( p - \bar{p} ) \Psi(\bar{p})[/tex]

where

[tex] V( p - \bar{p} ) \equiv \langle p | V | \bar{p} \rangle = \int dx \ e^{ix( p - \bar{p})} V(x)[/tex]

is an ordinary function of the momentum p. So in this representation, you have

[tex]\left[ \hat{x} , \hat{V} \right] = i \frac{\partial V}{\partial p}[/tex]


regards

sam
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: alexwangbx
The momentum and position representations are connected by a unitary transformation, which always preserves canonical or any commutation relations. So, if V is a function of x, then [x,V]=0 holds necessarily in the momentum representation, or any representation. Hint; write out V in terms of the momentum rep of x.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
(Let us remain extremely civilized and scientific. I'm concerned with the content)

samalkhaiat said:
Schrödinger equation becomes an integral equation

[tex]i\partial_{t} \Psi (p) = p^{2} \Psi(p) + \int d \bar{p} V( p - \bar{p} ) \Psi(\bar{p})[/tex]

where

[tex] V( p - \bar{p} ) \equiv \langle p | V | \bar{p} \rangle = \int dx \ e^{ix( p - \bar{p})} V(x)[/tex]

is an ordinary function of the momentum p.

This was a mistake. The operator, which is multiplication operator [tex]\hat{V}[/tex] in the spatial space, becomes

[tex] \hat{\psi}\mapsto \mathcal{F}\hat{V}\mathcal{F}^{-1}\hat{\psi},[/tex]

[tex] (\mathcal{F}\hat{V}\mathcal{F}^{-1}\hat{\psi})(p) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dx\; d\bar{p}\; e^{ix(p-\bar{p})} V(x) \hat{\psi}(\bar{p})[/tex]

in the momentum space. Usually you cannot write this as an integral operator with an ordinary function as the kernel. For example, if we have [itex]V(x)=x^2[/itex], and insist on writing the potential operator as an integral operator, we need derivatives of the delta function to the kernel.

[tex] \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dx\; d\bar{p}\; e^{ix(p-\bar{p})} x^2 \hat{\psi}(\bar{p}) = \cdots =<br /> \int d\bar{p}\;\big(-\partial_p^2 \delta(p-\bar{p})\big) \hat{\psi}(\bar{p})[/tex]
 
It could I complained about a small thing. If we accept

[tex] \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dx\; e^{-ix(p-\bar{p})} x^2 = -\partial_p^2\delta(p-\bar{p}),[/tex]

then this

samalkhaiat said:
[tex] V( p - \bar{p} ) \equiv \langle p | V | \bar{p} \rangle = \int dx \ e^{ix( p - \bar{p})} V(x)[/tex]

is an ordinary function of the momentum p.

is fine. However, here

So in this representation, you have

[tex]\left[ \hat{x} , \hat{V} \right] = i \frac{\partial V}{\partial p}[/tex]

you seem to assume that V was a multiplication operator in the momentum space too. If you calculate the commutator with the integral operator representation of the potential, the commutator vanishes again.
 
Operators in Hilbert Space can be multiplied by other operators, and can multiply states, as in O|p>.

!. As is discussed in almost all QM texts, a commutator is an operator, and any operator is independent of basis. So, if an operator is zero in any representation, it is zero in all representations.

2. Define W = xV(x) = V(x)x. W commutes with itself. Show this is so in your approach, and you will find your error.(This is most easily done with Dirac notation.)
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
974
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K