Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Answer

added 240 characters in body
Source Link
John
John
  • 4.2k
  • 8
  • 17

That was an interesting question, but I am not sure about the validity of the answer given there. In particular, in the fourth line of his/her response @udrv replaces $p_1$ with $-i \partial/\partial x$, but once you are allowed to do that, the commutation relation follows by itselve as an identity, as has been shown countless times in this forum.

EDIT: The remark about @udrv's original answer is inaccurate. As @ShKol has pointed out in a comment, $p_1$ was replaced with $-i \partial/\partial x$ not in "symbolic" context, but as a standard differentiaion-under-integration trick.

That was an interesting question, but I am not sure about the validity of the answer given there. In particular, in the fourth line of his/her response @udrv replaces $p_1$ with $-i \partial/\partial x$, but once you are allowed to do that, the commutation relation follows by itselve as an identity, as has been shown countless times in this forum.

That was an interesting question, but I am not sure about the validity of the answer given there. In particular, in the fourth line of his/her response @udrv replaces $p_1$ with $-i \partial/\partial x$, but once you are allowed to do that, the commutation relation follows by itselve as an identity, as has been shown countless times in this forum.

EDIT: The remark about @udrv's original answer is inaccurate. As @ShKol has pointed out in a comment, $p_1$ was replaced with $-i \partial/\partial x$ not in "symbolic" context, but as a standard differentiaion-under-integration trick.

Source Link
John
John
  • 4.2k
  • 8
  • 17

That was an interesting question, but I am not sure about the validity of the answer given there. In particular, in the fourth line of his/her response @udrv replaces $p_1$ with $-i \partial/\partial x$, but once you are allowed to do that, the commutation relation follows by itselve as an identity, as has been shown countless times in this forum.