What Makes a Set of Commuting Observables Good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lengalicious
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    observables Set
Lengalicious
Messages
162
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I keep seeing this crop up throughout my QM course but i still don't understand what a "good" set of commuting observables would be. . Surely any set of observables that commute have to be a good set? I may just be stating the obvious but the way its phrased it makes me feel as though some observables that commute may be 'better' for some reason than another set that also commute but I don't understand why that's the case. Like if you have a couple of operators such that [a, b] = 0 and [a, c] = 0 are they both as good as each other for describing a quantum system or what? To me this says that observables for both a and b, or a and c can be found simultaneously so neither is a better set?


Homework Equations


N/a


The Attempt at a Solution


Pretty much explained my thoughts on the matter above, its not so much a homework question as it is just clarification.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You often see "good" associated with quantum numbers. I did a search for "good set of commuting observables (operators)" and didn't find much. But "good quantum number" yielded some hits. Looking at the results, it appears that a "good quantum number" is often taken to mean a quantum number associated with an operator that commutes with the Hamiltonian so that the value of the quantum number remains constant in time. An example would be the angular momentum quantum number ##l## for the hydrogen atom if you neglect spin-orbit interaction. With spin-orbit interaction ##l## is no longer "good".

So, perhaps, a good set of commuting observables would be a set of commuting operators that includes the Hamiltonian. You could possibly add a further condition that the set of observables is "complete" so that a quantum state which is an eigenstate of all of the observables in the set would be uniquely determined. Don't know if this helps much.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top