I ##Tr([Q,P])## and Ballentine Problem 6.3

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on solving a problem from Ballentine regarding the trace of finite-dimensional matrices and the implications of the commutation relation between operators Q and P. It is established that for finite-dimensional matrices A and B, the trace of their commutator is zero, yet this leads to a paradox when applied to the infinite-dimensional case, suggesting that ħ must equal zero. Participants clarify that the issue arises because Q and P are not trace-class operators, and thus their traces are ill-defined in the infinite-dimensional space. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the convergence of infinite sums and the limitations of applying finite-dimensional results to infinite-dimensional operators. Ultimately, the trace of the commutator is not well-defined, reinforcing that the naive application of finite-dimensional logic fails in this context.
  • #31
PeterDonis said:
[...] taking the trace (and seeing that it gives an infinite sum of terms each of which is ##i \hbar##) is simple.
No, it's not. An infinite sum like ##(\sum_{n=0}^\infty 1)## is divergent.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
strangerep said:
An infinite sum like ##(\sum_{n=0}^\infty 1)## is divergent.
Yes, I know that. I'm just saying that that infinite sum is what formally taking the trace of the infinite identity matrix gives you. I think something like that is what Ballentine intends to illustrate with the problem under discussion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K