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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a relation involving exponentials of operators, specifically showing that f(x) = exp(a)x exp(b) satisfies a certain differential equation and subsequently using that to establish a relationship between exp(a) exp(b) and exp(a + b) exp(1/2 [a, b]). The subject area is operator algebra and the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) relation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss differentiating an expression with respect to a variable x and relate it to a differential equation. There is mention of using a Taylor expansion, but one participant finds it unhelpful. Others suggest a strategy involving inserting x into the exponent and differentiating.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring different approaches to the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the differentiation strategy and the connection to the BCH relation, which has helped at least one participant find a proof.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the operators commuting with their commutator, and the participants are navigating the constraints of the problem without reaching a definitive conclusion.

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
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
21K
  • · 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
3K