Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
No, because when expanding $L_k$ you see that only components $X_k$ and $P_h$ with $h \neq k$ enter the formula, and they commute. So you can safely use the classical definition also in QM and the symmetrised formula would produce the same result.
No, because when expanding $L_k$ you see that only components $X_k$ and $P_h$ with $h \neq k$ enter the formula, and they commute. So you can safely use the classical definition also in QM.
No, because when expanding $L_k$ you see that only components $X_k$ and $P_h$ with $h \neq k$ enter the formula, and they commute. So you can safely use the classical definition also in QM and the symmetrised formula would produce the same result.
No, because when expanding $L_k$ you see that only components $X_k$ and $P_h$ with $h \neq k$ enter the formula, and they commute. So you can safely use the classical definition also in QM.
