Proof that commuting operators have a shared base of eigenfunctions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between commuting operators A and B in quantum mechanics, specifically regarding their shared eigenfunctions. It is noted that existing proofs typically assume a non-degenerate spectrum, raising concerns about the applicability of these proofs in cases of degeneracy, which is common in quantum systems. Participants suggest that degenerate eigenspaces can be treated as vectors in an abstract sense, though this perspective may not be universally accepted. A proposed approach involves spectral decomposition, demonstrating that A and B commute if their respective projection operators also commute. The conversation highlights the need for a more general proof that accommodates degeneracy without oversimplifying the conditions.
jakotaco
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have been told that if we have two operators, A and B, such that AB = BA then this is equivalent with that A and B have a common base of eigenfunctions.

However, the proof given was made under the assumption that the operators had a non-degenerate spectrum. Now I understand that one rather wants to give a short proof under some simplified condition and hope people will take your word that it applies without those simplifications. But in quantum mechanics, it is not as if degeneracy is uncommon.

So, does anyone know how to prove it more generally? Or maybe an explanation why the assumption isn't as bad as I though?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jakotaco said:
I have been told that if we have two operators, A and B, such that AB = BA then this is equivalent with that A and B have a common base of eigenfunctions.

However, the proof given was made under the assumption that the operators had a non-degenerate spectrum. Now I understand that one rather wants to give a short proof under some simplified condition and hope people will take your word that it applies without those simplifications. But in quantum mechanics, it is not as if degeneracy is uncommon.

So, does anyone know how to prove it more generally? Or maybe an explanation why the assumption isn't as bad as I though?

If you search back through this forum for recent weeks, you'll find another thread
where I gave a proof - and got the same objection about degeneracy. Someone else
added the extra detail.

Personally, I don't think it's all that bad, since one can regard the degenerate
eigenspaces as vectors if you think more abstractly in terms of equivalence classes.
Others may find this a bit distasteful, however.
 
ok, thanks I found this thread by browsing your post history: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=417407

This is the step I am unsure about

strangerep said:
<br /> H (A |n\rangle) ~=~ \lambda_n (A |n\rangle) ~.<br />

Therefore, (A |n\rangle) is an eigenvector of H with eigenvalue \lambda_n
and hence is proportional to |n\rangle. (This follows because all the
eigenvectors are mutually orthogonal.) So we have:

<br /> A |n\rangle ~\propto~ |n\rangle ~.<br />

But I will try giving it some more thought, reading some of the similar threads on this forum and see if it comes more clearly.
 
One way of doing it is by spectral decomposition:

A=\sum a_n P_n

B=\sum b_n Q_n

where a_n,b_n are eigenvalues and P_n,Q_n are projection operators on eigenspaces of A and B resp. Then it is an easy exercise to show that A and B commute if an only if all P_n and Q_m commute. If so, then

P_nQ_m are also projections and we have orthogonal sum

\sum_{m,n}P_nQ_m=I.

You then take any orthonormal basis from vectors contained in P_nQ_m subspaces and you are done one way. The other way is easy.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
17K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
889
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K