Simple check for operaters communting, think im missing something very obvious

  • Thread starter Thread starter hoch449
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The original poster is investigating the commutation relation between two angular momentum operators, Lx and Ly, defined in terms of partial derivatives. The goal is to determine whether the commutator [Lx, Ly] equals zero or not.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to expand the commutator [Lx, Ly] but believes they made an error in their calculations, leading to an incorrect conclusion of commutation. Other participants suggest considering the action of the operators on a function and applying the product rule for differentiation. Some also mention using commutator identities to simplify the problem.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the correct approach to expanding the commutator and clarifying the nature of operator calculations. There is a productive exchange of hints and methods, with some participants providing insights into the necessary steps for a proper expansion.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the importance of treating operators correctly and the need to consider their action on arbitrary functions, which may influence the outcome of the commutation relation.

hoch449
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am supposed to find if the following commutes: [Lx,Ly]



Homework Equations




Lx= -i[tex]\hbar[/tex][y([tex]\partial/[/tex][tex]\partial[/tex]z) - z([tex]\partial/[/tex][tex]\partial[/tex]y)]

Ly= -i[tex]\hbar[/tex][z([tex]\partial/[/tex][tex]\partial[/tex]x) - x([tex]\partial/[/tex][tex]\partial[/tex]z)]

where [Lx,Ly]=LxLy-LyLx

If it commutes then [Lx,Ly]=0

The Attempt at a Solution



[Lx,Ly]= (i[tex]\hbar[/tex])2{[y([tex]\partial/[/tex][tex]\partial[/tex]z) - z([tex]\partial/[/tex][tex]\partial[/tex]y)[z([tex]\partial/[/tex][tex]\partial[/tex]x) - x([tex]\partial/[/tex][tex]\partial[/tex]z)]}


After expanding this I got a result of 0. So my solution concluded that they commute.

The answer however is [Lx,Ly]= i[tex]\hbar[/tex]Lx

I clearly expanded it wrong. I was hoping if anyone could explain how they expanded the LxLy-LyLx part. In my calculations I cannot seem to figure out how the answer contains a few more parts in the expansion which results in a non-commutation..

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hoch449 said:
The answer however is [Lx,Ly]= i[tex]\hbar[/tex]Lx

I think you mean [Lx,Ly]= i[tex]\hbar[/tex]Lz.

Hint: Consider [itex]\left( L_x L_y - L_y L_x \right)f[/itex], where [itex]f[/itex] is an arbitrary function of the spatial coordinates. Take things one step at a time, don't forget about the product rule for differentiation, and remove [itex]f[/itex] at the end.
 
Keep in mind that you're working with operators, so it's not just a matter of simple expansion. To calculate such a commutator, let the whole thing act on a function.

[tex][L_x,L_y]f(x,y,z)[/tex]

Since you have all sort of derivatives you will find that the product comes into a play a number of times. For instance, one term gives:
[tex]y\frac{\partial}{\partial z} \left( z\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right) f(x,y,z) = <br /> y \frac{\partial}{\partial x} f(x,y,z) + yz \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x\partialz}f(x,y,z)[/tex]

One of these terms will be canceled by some other term, while the other one survives.

EDIT: OK, George beat me to it ;)
 
Another way to do it is to use the two following commutator identities:

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> &[A+B,C]=[A,C]+[B,C]<br /> \\<br /> &[A,BC]=[A,B]C+B[A,C]<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]
 
Perfect it all makes sense now! You guys are great thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K