Undergrad Sum of squares of 2 non-commutating operators

Click For Summary
Prof. Adams demonstrates a method of factorizing the sum of squares of two non-commuting operators, using a technique derived from complex scalars. He shows that the expression can be rewritten to include a non-zero commutator due to the non-commutativity of the operators. The identity for complex scalars, which relies on the commutativity of multiplication, does not directly apply to operators where the order matters. Participants express confusion over how the factorization holds when cross terms do not cancel, but it is clarified that these terms contribute a constant. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the implications of operator non-commutativity in quantum mechanics.
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
775
Prof Adams does something rather strange, starting from 14:35 minutes in this lecture -- http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/lecture-videos/lecture-9/

He reminds us that for complex scalars, ##c^2+d^2=(c-id)(c+id)## and then proceeds to do the same with operators,

factorizing ##\frac{\hat{X}^2}{X_0^2}+\frac{\hat{P}^2}{P_0^2}##

in this way :

##=(\frac{\hat{X}}{X_0}-i\frac{\hat{P}}{P_0})(\frac{\hat{X}}{X_0}+i\frac{\hat{P}}{P_0})##

which he re-expands into a sum of squares plus a NON-ZERO commutator.

Is it not true that the identity he started with, i.e. ##c^2+d^2=(c-id)(c+id)## for complex scalars - is valid precisely when (and because) ##icd=idc##? So how does this apply to the operators where ##XP\ne{PX}## ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Swamp Thing said:
Is it not true that the identity he started with, i.e. ##c^2+d^2=(c-id)(c+id)## for complex scalars - is valid precisely when (and because) ##icd=idc##?
Of course, and this is exactly the reason why you get an additional commutator when you try to generalize this formula to non-commuting operators.
 
Thanks, but I'm still confused.

I'm not sure how you can equate/replace ##\frac{\hat{X}^2}{X_0^2}+\frac{\hat{P}^2}{P_0^2}##

with

##(\frac{\hat{X}}{X_0}-i\frac{\hat{P}}{P_0})(\frac{\hat{X}}{X_0}+i\frac{\hat{P}}{P_0})##

in the first place, when you know that the cross terms in the latter are not going to cancel?
 
Swamp Thing said:
Thanks, but I'm still confused.

I'm not sure how you can equate/replace ##\frac{\hat{X}^2}{X_0^2}+\frac{\hat{P}^2}{P_0^2}##

with

##(\frac{\hat{X}}{X_0}-i\frac{\hat{P}}{P_0})(\frac{\hat{X}}{X_0}+i\frac{\hat{P}}{P_0})##

in the first place, when you know that the cross terms in the latter are not going to cancel?

They don't cancel, but the cross-terms are a constant. So:

\frac{\hat{X}^2}{X_0^2}+\frac{\hat{P}^2}{P_0^2} = (\frac{\hat{X}}{X_0}-i\frac{\hat{P}}{P_0})(\frac{\hat{X}}{X_0}+i\frac{\hat{P}}{P_0}) + K

You can work out what the constant K is.
 
Thank you.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K