Power Series For Function of Operators

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving a general power series for a function of non-commuting operators, specifically in the context of quantum mechanics. The initial proposal for the series is deemed incorrect due to the potential presence of operators between variables. A revised expansion is suggested, but the author expresses uncertainty and seeks assistance in formulating the correct power series. The goal is to derive a commutation relation involving a function of operators and to explore the complexities arising from non-commutativity. The conversation highlights the challenges in creating a neat power series representation for such functions.
ghotra
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm looking for a general power series for a function of F of n operators. As normal, the operators do not necessarily commute.

My first guess was:
<br /> F(x,p) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty a_{ij} x^i p^j + b_{ij}p^i x^j<br />

However, I don't think this is correct as it is possible to have operators between x and p.
So then I thought that this might be the correct expansion:
<br /> F(x,p) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty a_{ij} x^i b_{ij} p^j + c_{ij} p^i d_{ij} x^j<br />

Obviously, I'm just guessing here and could use some help. Why do I care about this? I am trying to derive a formula for

[F(x_1,...,x_n), G]

Suppose I know how G commutes with each of the operators x_i. I want to get an expansion for G commuting with some function F of the x_i operators. I'll work on the details of that, but first I need some help with the power series of F.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There exists a simple rule, if you'd be applying your discussion to quantum mechanics.

Daniel.
 
So here is what I am actually trying to do. I have:

<br /> [P^j,\phi_r(x)] = -i \hbar \frac{\partial\phi_r(x)}{\partial x_j}<br />

and

<br /> [P^j,\pi_r(x)] = -i \hbar \frac{\partial\pi_r(x)}{\partial x_j}<br />

For a function F\left(\phi_r(x),\pi_r(x)\right), I need to show the following:

<br /> [P^j,F\left(\phi_r(x),\pi_r(x)\right)] = -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}F\left(\phi_r(x),\pi_r(x)\right)<br />

I was thinking of considering the various commutator relations:

<br /> [P^j,\phi^n_r(x)]<br />

but since the operators don't commute, there are (too) many possible combinations to consider. I would be interested in knowing this trick you speak of.

Thanks.
 
Use the Poisson bracket and Dirac's rule giving the canonical quantization.

Daniel.
 
Could someone spell this out for me? I have convinced myself that there is no pretty way to write a power series for a function of operators (that do not necessarily commute). It seems like you'd have a sum of an infinite product...each term in the product with their own index...so you are summing over an infinite number of indices.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K