Uncertainty Relations and Functions of Operators

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dathascome
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics involving hermitian operators A and B. The user struggles with understanding why the commutator of the uncertainties, [ΔA, ΔB], equals [A, B] and how the additional terms cancel out when considering expected values. They also express confusion regarding the non-commutativity of operator exponentials, specifically why e^A * e^B does not equal e^(A+B), and seek clarification on a Taylor expansion approach to demonstrate this. The conversation highlights the importance of recognizing scalar terms and their cancellation in commutators, as well as the implications of non-commuting operators in exponential functions. Overall, the thread emphasizes the subtleties of operator algebra in quantum mechanics.
Dathascome
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
More QM trouble:(

Hi there,
I'm having a bit of trouble with something dealing with functions of operators and commutators. It's two different examples actually. For the first one I have that A and B are hermitian operators and their expected values with respect to a normalized state vector /S> are <A>=<S/A\S>
where <br /> \Delta <br />A=sqrt(A-<A>), and similarly for B.
Now here's the thing I'm having trouble with. They're trying to derive the uncertainty relation in this book, and for part of it they say that [<br /> \Delta <br />A,<br /> \Delta <br />B]=[A,B]
(these are the commutators)
I know it's probably something really obvious but for some reason I don't see it. I tried actually writing out the full expression for the commutator but I don't see why they would be equal.

As for the second problem I'm having, it has to do with functions of operators. Again I have 2 operators (this time not necessarily hermitian) that do not commute, [A,B] not equal to 0, which implies that [B,F(A)] (some function of A) is also not equal to 0. So here comes the parts I'm not sure of, they say that e^A*e^Bnot equal to e^(A+B), which I don't see why. How could I show this using a taylor expansion. I tried but didn't really get what I should have.
They then proceed to say that e^A*e^b = e^(A+B)*e^[A,B]/2

and also,
e^A*B*e^-A= B+ [A,B] + 1/2![A,[A,B]]+ 1/3![A,[A,[A,B]]]+...

neither of which I fully understand...I mean, I can see that the last one is a taylor series but I don't fully understand either of the last two things.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Forgive me for not noticing that thread. Suprisingly that is the problem I was looking at. The thing is it didn't really answer my question. I'm sorry I know that there's probably something really stupid that I'm missing but I don't see this
the commutator
[\Delta A,~ \Delta B] = [A - \langle A \rangle I,~B - \langle B \rangle I] = [A,B] ~~~-~(4)
I do not get for some reason.
Writing out the commutator
<br /> AB-A\langle B \rangle I - \langle A \rangle I B + \langle A \rangle I \langle B \rangle I -BA + B\langle A\rangle I +\langle B \rangle I A- \langle B \rangle I \langle A \rangle I<br />

So I can pick out the AB-BA=[A,B], but what happens to all the rest of that stuff there?
OlderDan, thanks for trying to point me in the right direction, any further help would be great.
 
Last edited:
Dathascome said:
Writing out the commutator
<br /> AB-A\langle B \rangle I - \langle A \rangle I B + \langle A \rangle I \langle B \rangle I -BA + B\langle A\rangle I +\langle B \rangle I A- \langle B \rangle I \langle A \rangle I<br />

So I can pick out the AB-BA=[A,B], but what happens to all the rest of that stuff there?
Notice that \langle X \rangle is just a scalar and IX = XI = X, so all the other terms cancel off nicely.
 
Last edited:
Damnit, I knew it was something really simple. Those are things that always get me, the obvious or somewhat obvious things :cry:

Is it something just as obvious that I missed concerning my second question with the exponentials?
 
Dathascome said:
So here comes the parts I'm not sure of, they say that e^A*e^Bnot equal to e^(A+B), which I don't see why. How could I show this using a taylor expansion. I tried but didn't really get what I should have.
They then proceed to say that e^A*e^b = e^(A+B)*e^[A,B]/2

and also,
e^A*B*e^-A= B+ [A,B] + 1/2![A,[A,B]]+ 1/3![A,[A,[A,B]]]+...

neither of which I fully understand...I mean, I can see that the last one is a taylor series but I don't fully understand either of the last two things.

First, Taylor expand the exponentials :

a^A \cdot e^B = (I + A + \frac {A^2}{2!} + \frac {A^3}{3!} + ...)(I + B + \frac {B^2}{2!} + \frac {B^3}{3!} + ...)
=I + A + B + AB + \frac {A^2 + B^2}{2!} + ...<br /> = I + (A+B) + \frac {A^2 + B^2 + 2AB}{2!} + ...

But notice that, for instance
(A+B)^2 = A^2 + B^2+AB+BA = A^2 + B^2+2AB+BA-AB=(A+B)^2+[B,A] \neq (A+B)^2

Use this above and hopefully, the result will follow. :smile:
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top