What Are the Commutators of Vector Operators?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the commutators of vector operators, specifically exploring identities and expressions that can simplify the calculation of commutators involving vector operators. Participants engage in both theoretical and technical explanations related to this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks identities to simplify the expression \left[\mathbf{\hat A}\cdot\mathbf{\hat B}, \mathbf{\hat C}\right].
  • Another participant clarifies the definition of a commutator and provides an identity: [AB,C] = A[B,C] + [A,C]B.
  • A different participant suggests using the anti-commutator for further exploration.
  • Concerns are raised about the notation used for vector operators, particularly regarding the multiplication of vectors without clear definitions, questioning the validity of expressions like “ABC” when A, B, and C are vector operators.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about proceeding with the derivation rigorously due to potential issues with vector multiplication.
  • A participant acknowledges confusion regarding the context of vector versus matrix operators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the notation and definitions related to vector operators and commutators, leading to unresolved questions about the rigor of the derivations presented. No consensus is reached on the best approach to the problem.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about vector multiplication and the notation used, which may affect the clarity and correctness of the derivations discussed.

thecommexokid
Messages
68
Reaction score
2
I've been trying to work out some expressions involving commutators of vector operators, and I am hoping some of y'all might know some identities that might make my job a little easier.

Specifically, what is [itex]\left[\mathbf{\hat A}\cdot\mathbf{\hat B}, \mathbf{\hat C}\right][/itex]? Are there any useful identities to express this in terms of simpler commutators?

Any help is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure you mean a "vector operator", typically we talk about matrix operators when discussing the commutator relationships (or group elements in a more general setting).
Vector operator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_operator

However, your question is straightforward,
[S,T] = ST - TS (by definition)

Start with [AB,C] = ABC - CAB (+ ACB - ACB )
= ABC - ACB + ACB - CAB
= A(BC - CB) + (AC - CA)B
= A[B,C] + [A,C]B

Therefore we conclude [AB,C] = A[B,C] + [A,C]B
to be an identity.
Does that answer your question... you could have looked anywhere on the internet to get this... so I'm guessing this isn't what you want.
 
Thank you for the [STRIKE]reply[/STRIKE]replies.

brydustin said:
[S,T] = ST - TS (by definition)

Start with [AB,C] = ABC - CAB (+ ACB - ACB )
= ABC - ACB + ACB - CAB
= A(BC - CB) + (AC - CA)B
= A[B,C] + [A,C]B

Therefore we conclude [AB,C] = A[B,C] + [A,C]B

It seems to me that you're being pretty cavalier about vector multiplication, what with the way you're just putting vectors in a row next to each other without any dots or parentheses. For instance, what do you mean when you write “ABC”, when A, B and C are vector operators?

I would think that you should define [itex][{\bf{\hat S}},{\bf{\hat T}}] = {\bf{\hat S}} \cdot {\bf{\hat T}} - {\bf{\hat T}} \cdot {\bf{\hat S}}[/itex], and therefore start your derivation with
[tex][{\bf{\hat A}} \cdot {\bf{\hat B}},{\bf{\hat C}}] = ({\bf{\hat A}} \cdot {\bf{\hat B}}){\bf{\hat C}} - {\bf{\hat C}}({\bf{\hat A}} \cdot {\bf{\hat B}}).[/tex]
But from there, I'm not sure how you can safely proceed, if you're being rigorous with your dots and parens. For instance — and correct me if I'm wrong on this — but I don't think [itex]({\bf{\hat A}} \cdot {\bf{\hat C}}){\bf{\hat B}}[/itex] is equal to [itex]{\bf{\hat A}}({\bf{\hat C}} \cdot {\bf{\hat B}})[/itex], so your next step seems iffy.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, sorry I don't know. I thought you were intending for matrix operators. Good luck.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K