Why is the result not always 0 in the product rule for derivatives?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the product rule for derivatives in the context of quantum mechanics, specifically examining why certain commutation relations yield non-zero results while others do not. Participants explore the implications of applying the product rule to operators and functions, addressing confusion regarding specific cases presented in class.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the result of the commutation relation [x_{\alpha}, p_{\alpha}] does not equal zero, suggesting that the terms should cancel out but do not.
  • Another participant points out the necessity of using the product rule for derivatives when evaluating the commutation relation, noting that different indices lead to different results.
  • A participant expresses confusion about why one term disappears while another remains, seeking clarification on the application of the product rule.
  • It is confirmed by another participant that the product rule is indeed applicable, and they suggest rewriting the left-hand side in a different form.
  • A participant recounts a classroom example where the teacher demonstrated the commutation relations, providing specific calculations for both [x_{\alpha}, p_{\alpha}] and [x_{\alpha}, p_{\beta}].
  • Some participants emphasize that the step involving the product rule was omitted in the teacher's solution, leading to confusion.
  • One participant eventually realizes their oversight in applying the product rule correctly and shares their corrected calculation.
  • A later reply attempts to clarify the order of operations when dealing with products of operators and functions, although the participant later retracts their comment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the application of the product rule, with some confusion remaining about specific steps in the calculations. There is no consensus on the clarity of the teacher's explanation or the necessity of the product rule in certain cases.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the omission of the product rule in the teacher's solution contributes to the confusion, highlighting the importance of this step in understanding the commutation relations.

rayman123
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
[tex][x_{\alpha}, p_{\alpha}]\psi(r)=[x_{\alpha}(-i\hbar \frac{\partial}{{ \partial x_\alpha}})-(-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{\alpha}})x_{\alpha}]\psi(r)[/tex]

why the result is

[tex]i\hbar\psi(r)[/tex] should not be 0?

and then the same situation
why in this case we get 0?

[tex][x_{\beta}, p_{\beta}]\psi(r)=0[/tex] ? Can someone please explain it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


You need to use the product rule for derivatives when you evaluate the term on the right, and if the indices are different (you made them the same in both your examples), the extra term that comes from the product rule is zero.
 


hm...i still do not know what they just don't dissapear..they have opposite signs..
Why does the first term on the right side of the equation just dissapear? and the second one remains?
you mean the rule
[tex][f(x)g(x)]= f'(x)g(x)+f(x)g'(x)[/tex] ?
 


Yes that's the rule, but I would write the left-hand side as [tex](fg)'(x)[/tex]. You could also write it as [tex]\frac{d}{dx}\big(f(x)g(x)\big)[/tex]. Show us what you got so we can tell you what you did wrong.
 


this was made by our teacher on classes
[tex][x_{\alpha}, p_{\alpha}]\psi(r)=[x_{\alpha}(-i\hbar \frac{\partial}{{ \partial x_\alpha}})-(-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{\alpha}})x_{\alpha}]\psi(r)=i\hbar(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_\alpha}}x_{\alpha})\psi(r)=i\hbar\psi(r)[/tex]
this was the first one

the second case was
[tex][x_{\alpha}, p_{\beta}]\psi(r)=[x_{\alpha}(-i\hbar \frac{\partial}{{ \partial x_\beta}})-(-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{\beta}})x_{\alpha}]\psi(r)=0[/tex]
 


Those are correct, but you didn't actually include the step where you use the product rule.
 


because that step does not exist in the solution, that's why i do not get it, he just jumped over this moment and i don't know how make it myself
 


At least try. You have the product rule in front of you. Do you understand what it says?
 


oh i found it! so stupid i have missed it before
[tex][x_{\alpha}, p_{\alpha}]\psi(r)=x_{\alpha}(-i\hbar \frac{\partial}{{ \partial x_\alpha}}\psi(r))+i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{\alpha}})(x_{\alpha}\psi(r))=-i\hbar x\frac{\partial\psi(r)}{\partial x}+i\hbar\psi(r)+i\hbar x\frac{\partial\psi(r)}{\partial x}=i\hbar\psi(r)[/tex]

thank you for your help
 
  • #10


I'll try to pitch in, since I vividly remember being confused when I first saw this.

When you see ABf, with A and B operators and f some function, remember you first operate with B on f and then you operate with A on the result (which is a product in your case!). It's not [tex]Af \cdot Bf[/tex]

edit: never mind;)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
382
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K