Quick noob question: commutative of eigenstates

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ykjh98Hu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eigenstates Noob
Ykjh98Hu
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
let L be angular momentum operator.

[L^2 , Lz] = 0
[L^2 , Lx] = 0 (I haven't prove this, but appearantly it's correct according to lecturer)

does it imply that [Lx , Lz] = 0?

this is just one interesting thoughts that cross my mind because I recalled that if 2 matrix [A,B] =0, A and B will have same eigenvectors (ie same basis that diagonalise them). Does this apply to above case because:

if L^2 and Lz = 0, we can spell ALL eigenstates of them.
then Lx suppose to share ALL those eigenstates since it commutes with L^2 too.

And...it violate uncertainty principle! (impossible.) so someone point out my error please! thanks =)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is true that if A and B commute, then they have a common complete set of eigenvectors. So obviously if A and C commute, then they also have a complete set of common eigenvectors, but nobody says these two sets must be the same! This of course means that some of the eigenvalues of A must be degenerate, because otherwise the eigenvectors are uniquely determined. This is exactly the case of L^2, whose eigenvalues j = 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, ... show (at least) a j(j+1)-fold degeneracy. In fact L_z and L_x don't commute, generally: their commutator is iL_y, which is most of the times different from zero.
 
Petr Mugver said:
It is true that if A and B commute, then they have a common complete set of eigenvectors. So obviously if A and C commute, then they also have a complete set of common eigenvectors, but nobody says these two sets must be the same! This of course means that some of the eigenvalues of A must be degenerate, because otherwise the eigenvectors are uniquely determined. This is exactly the case of L^2, whose eigenvalues j = 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, ... show (at least) a j(j+1)-fold degeneracy. In fact L_z and L_x don't commute, generally: their commutator is iL_y, which is most of the times different from zero.

ah thanks for the clarification! i notice [Lx,Lz] !=0 and that's why i posted this. i must've forgot about degenerate eigenvalues.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top