Why Does Commuting Operators Require Test Functions in Quantum Mechanics?

Shackleford
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
2
Why is it that I have to use a test function for commuting a position operator with either momentum or angular momentum, but I don't necessarily have to use a test function for commuting the momentum operator with angular momentum?

In the first case, it doesn't make sense if you don't have a test function. You need a test function to prove that [xi, pj] = i*h-bar*kronecker deltaij.

Why is the test function f = f(xi, xj)? Where i is not equal to j.

I hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You need a test function when you want to calculate the commutation relations "from scratch". If you calculate commutation relations of some functions (polynomials) of operators of which the commutation relations you already know, then algebra is enough.

As for you last question - each angular momentum component involves two different coordinates.
 
arkajad said:
You need a test function when you want to calculate the commutation relations "from scratch". If you calculate commutation relations of some functions (polynomials) of operators of which the commutation relations you already know, then algebra is enough.

As for you last question - each angular momentum component involves two different coordinates.

Well, for the momentum, I worked it out with a test function and without a test function. They both worked out correctly, so I assume you can correctly work out the momentum/angular momentum commutation relations without using a test function.
 
Once you got momentum-positions commutation relations the rest can be reduced to the pure algebra, possibly with series expansions if you want to calculate commutators like [p,f(x)]

But if you want to calculate a general formula for,say, [p,f(x)], then using a test function is handy.
 
well..n physics, angular momentum, moment of momentum, or rotational momentum[1][2] is a conserved vector quantity that can be used to describe the overall state of a physical system. The angular momentum L of a particle with respect to some point of origin is

\mathbf{L} = \mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{p} = \mathbf{r} \times m\mathbf{v}\, ,

where r is the particle's position from the origin, p = mv is its linear momentum, and × denotes the cross product.

The angular momentum of a system of particles (e.g. a rigid body) is the sum of angular momenta of the individual particles. For a rigid body rotating around an axis of symmetry (e.g. the fins of a ceiling fan), the angular momentum can be expressed as the product of the body's moment of inertia I (a measure of an object's resistance to changes in its rotation rate) and its angular velocity ω:
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top