Sum of squares of 2 non-commutating operators

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Swamp Thing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators Squares Sum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical manipulation of the sum of squares of two non-commuting operators in quantum mechanics, specifically examining the validity of a factorization approach similar to that used for complex scalars. Participants explore the implications of non-commutativity on this factorization and the resulting additional terms.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Prof Adams presents a factorization of the sum of squares of operators, drawing a parallel to a known identity for complex scalars.
  • Some participants question the validity of applying the identity for complex scalars to non-commuting operators, noting that the identity relies on the commutativity of terms.
  • Others argue that the introduction of a non-zero commutator is a necessary consequence of the non-commutativity of the operators involved.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the replacement of the sum of squares with the factorized form, highlighting that cross terms do not cancel out.
  • Another participant clarifies that while the cross terms do not cancel, they contribute a constant term to the equation, suggesting that this constant can be determined.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the applicability of the scalar identity to non-commuting operators and the implications of the resulting terms. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the factorization approach.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the operators and the specific conditions under which the factorization is considered valid. The discussion also highlights the dependence on the definitions of the operators involved.

Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
798
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
860
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
498
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K