Proof of exp(a)exp(b) = exp(a+b)exp(1/2 [a,b])

  • Thread starter Thread starter asantas93
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the relation exp(a)exp(b) = exp(a+b)exp(1/2 [a,b]) for commuting operators a and b. The key steps involve showing that the function f(x) = exp(xa)exp(xb) satisfies the differential equation df/dx = (a + b + x[a,b])f. By differentiating with respect to x and applying the boundary condition, the proof confirms the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) relation. This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding the properties of bounded operators rather than relying on Taylor series expansions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of operator algebra and commutation relations
  • Familiarity with the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formula
  • Knowledge of differential equations and their applications in operator theory
  • Basic concepts of bounded operators in functional analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) relation in detail
  • Learn about the properties of bounded operators in functional analysis
  • Explore differential equations in the context of operator theory
  • Investigate commutation relations and their implications in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying quantum mechanics or operator theory who seek to deepen their understanding of operator relations and their applications in various fields.

asantas93
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



a, b are operators that commute with their commutator

(1) Show that f(x) = exaexb satisfies df/dx = (a + b + x[a,b])f

(2) use (1) to show that eaeb = ea+be(1/2)[a,b]

Homework Equations



[a,[b,a]] = [b,[b,a]] = 0

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried a Taylor expansion but just got a mess.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you get part (1)?

If so, the strategy is to slip an x into the exponent of the object in (2) and then differentiate it with respect to x. You should find that the object in (2) satisfies the same differential equation, with the same boundary condition, as the object in (1). It's therefore the same object. Then at the end you just set x=1 to get the answer.

Btw this is an example of a "BCH" relation (Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff) and if you search around for that you should find loads of stuff.
 
This is not an exercise about Taylor series, it's simply a neat trick to get a useful relation between exponentials of particular bounded operators.
 
Thanks, knowing the name of this sort of equation helped me find a proof.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
20K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K