Sign up ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

I've been given the following problem, and I'm quite lost with it.

Let $L_1$, $L_2$, and $L_3$ denote the abstract $o(3)$ algebras. You are given that $\vec{A} = (A_1, A_2, A_3)$ and $\vec{B} = (B_1, B_2, B_3)$ transform as vector operators of $o(3)$.

Show that $[L_j, \vec{A} \cdot \vec{B}] = 0$

I know that $L_j = \varepsilon_{jlm} q_l p_m$, and I can obviously determine the dot product, but I'm not sure where to go from there.

I do, however, know that $\vec{A} = \frac{1}{Ze^{2}\mu}(\vec{L} \times \vec{p}) + (\frac{1}{r})\vec{r}$, but I'm not sure how to integrate that into this problem.

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off-topic by DanielSank, Kyle Kanos, Rob Jeffries, Brandon Enright, BMS Dec 30 '14 at 21:56

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – Kyle Kanos, Rob Jeffries, Brandon Enright
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

You don't need to know the specific form of $\vec{A}$ or representation of $\vec{L}$, only that $\vec{A},\vec{B}$ transform like vectors. That tells you the commutators $[L_j, A_i]$ and $[L_j, B_i]$, and from that you can compute $[L_j, \vec{A}\cdot\vec{B}]$. Also note the homework tag applies even if this is not assigned coursework - it's close enough. :) – Michael Brown Sep 18 '13 at 8:31
@MichaelBrown I just saw this; I probably shouldn't have written my response given this comment. My apologies. – joshphysics Sep 18 '13 at 8:42
@joshphysics No worries. The only reason I didn't post the commutators is that I can never remember the sign. :) – Michael Brown Sep 18 '13 at 9:03
This question appears to be off-topic because it is purely a math question with no reference to physics whatsoever. – DanielSank Dec 30 '14 at 16:49

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

A collection $\{V_1, V_2, V_3\}$ of operators on a vector space $V$ is called an $\mathfrak{o}(3)$ vector operator with respect to a representation $\rho$ of $\mathfrak{o}(3)$ acting on $V$ provided \begin{align} [V_i, L_j] = i\epsilon_{ijk}V_k \end{align} where $L_1, L_2, L_3$ are the representatives of the standard basis on $\mathfrak{o}(3)$. This means, in your case, that merely knowing that $A_i$ and $B_i$ are the components of vector operators tells us that \begin{align} [A_i, L_j]=i\epsilon_{ijk}A_k, \qquad [B_i, L_j]=i\epsilon_{ijk}B_k \end{align} These commutation relations alone are sufficient to demonstrate the desired result using commutator identities.

As a tangential note, you will probably find the Wikipedia page on tensor operators to be generally, conceptually helpful for understanding this stuff. Also, a while back I asked the following question on physics.SE dealing with how to generalize and formalize the notion of tensor operators in a less basis-dependent way than how I defined them at the beginning of this answer. In case you're interested in math, here is that question:

Tensor Operators

share|cite|improve this answer
I know this is probably really stretching my luck, but how do I go about applying those commutation relations?? Should I be using $[A, BC] = [A, B]C + B[A, C]$?? – Jack Sep 18 '13 at 10:07
@Jack Cryptic general advice: if you have an idea for how to proceed in a problem, try that idea and see if it works :) – joshphysics Sep 18 '13 at 10:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.