I am reading about the recovery of some classical rules from quantum mechanics.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

My text (Shankar) considers a Hamiltonian operator in a one-dimensional space

H = P^2 / 2m + V(X)

where P and X are the momentum and position operators respectively.

It then asserts that [X,H] = [X,P^2/2m]

That is, it has discarded the potential term of the Hamiltonian without comment or explanation.

How is that justified? I would have thought that if, as indicated, V is a function of X, the hamiltonian operator should be expressed in terms of that function.

For example, if V is a gravitational potential V(X) = -k/X, I would expect the above commutator to be

[X,H] = [X,P^2/2m-k/X] = [X,P] - k[X,1/X]

Why does Shankar discard the second term?

If one didn't discard it, what would [X,1/X] mean? Is there any way to handle the reciprocal of an operator?

Thanks for any help.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Why ignore the potential term in the quantum Hamiltonian?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**