0
$\begingroup$

I'm supposed to show that $\left[\mathbf A,\mathbf B\right]=0$ (for two vector operators $\mathbf A$ and $\mathbf B$) if and only if all components of $\mathbf A$ commute with all components of $\mathbf B$. What I have so far is this: \begin{align*} \mathbf A \otimes\mathbf B &= \mathbf A\mathbf B^T \Rightarrow \left[\mathbf A,\mathbf B\right] = \mathbf A\otimes \mathbf B - \left[\mathbf B \otimes \mathbf A\right]^T=\mathbf A\mathbf B^T - \left[\mathbf B \mathbf A^T\right]^T = \mathbf A\mathbf B^T - \mathbf B^T\! \mathbf A = 0. \end{align*} So much for the basic arithmetic... what am I supposed to do now? I can expand into components, but the next question "give an expression for $\left[\mathbf A,\mathbf B\right]_{ij}$ in Einstein notation" kind of suggests I should avoid saying $\mathbf A = a^i_j$ and go from there. I tried doing so anyway, with the obvious result of: \begin{align*} \mathbf A\mathbf B^T - \mathbf B^T\! \mathbf A = a^i_j\left(b^i_j\right)^T - \left(b^i_j\right)^T a^i_j = a^i_jb^j_i - b^j_i a^i_j = 0. \end{align*} Should I be interpreting the result as "One of these vectors will produce a matrix, the other will produce a scalar (an inner product), which means that this expression can only be zero when the matrix equals zero" (?). I'm at a loss as to how to approach this..

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A and B are vector operators so, ${\bf A} \equiv a_i$ and ${\bf B} = b_i$. Then you result reads $[a_i , b_j ] = 0$ implying that each component of A must commute with every component of B. $\endgroup$ – Prahar Nov 7 '15 at 17:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Prahar How did you go from $\left[\mathbf A,\mathbf B\right]=0$ to $\left[a_i,b_j\right]=0$? Since $\mathbf B \equiv b_i \neq b_j$? $\endgroup$ – user55789 Nov 7 '15 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ Why do your vectors have two indices? And where did you get that definition for $\otimes$ from? That looks very odd.. I guess you could write $[\vec A_i,\vec B_j]=(\vec A\otimes\vec B)_{ij}-(\vec B\otimes\vec A)_{ij}=[a_i,a_j]$ $\endgroup$ – Daniel Nov 7 '15 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel I'm quite certain that this post screams "CONFUSION!!!" and I quite honestly can't debate it. The more in-depth your (or anyone's) explanation on the matter, the better. :-) $\endgroup$ – user55789 Nov 7 '15 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ First of all, "direct product" $\neq$ "algebraic product" (as in algebra of operators), so $A\otimes B \neq AB$ and $A\otimes B \neq AB^T$. Then ${\bf A} = {A_i}_i$, meaning vector operators are labeled by one index each, not two. Third, see Prahar's first comment above. Don't complicate things just because you think this is a complicated thing. $\endgroup$ – udrv Nov 7 '15 at 17:46
6
$\begingroup$

I think your confusion is arising from the fact that you are imagining operators as matrices. This is mostly fine, but in this case, the operator itself being a vector is what is causing the confusion - so let me elaborate.

${\bf A}$ is a vector of operators. For example $$ {\bf A} = \pmatrix{ A_1 \\ A_2 \\ A_3} $$ We can denote this collectively as $A_i$. Now, note that each of these $A_i$'s are themselves operators. In other words, they are matrices $(A_i)_{ab}$. Thus, each element of $A$ has three indices. One index is the vector index and the other two are the matrix operator indices.

Finally, the very definition of $[{\bf A} , {\bf B}]$ is the following $$ [ {\bf A} , {\bf B} ]_{ij} = [ A_i , B_j ] $$ The latter can further be written in matrix notation as $$ [ A_i , B_j ]_{ab} = (A_i)_{ac} (B_j)_{cb} - (B_j)_{ac} (A_i)_{cb} $$ Thus, $[{\bf A} , {\bf B} ] = 0$ is precisely the statement that all components of ${\bf A}$ commute with those of ${\bf B}$.

Let me finally point out that this question is really poorly worded. I would say that $[ {\bf A} , {\bf B} ] = 0$ is by definition the statement that the components commute. More clearly, (if it is not already) I mean that $[ {\bf A} , {\bf B} ] = 0$ already means that the components commute. There is nothing to derive here.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This was very illumating! $\endgroup$ – user55789 Nov 7 '15 at 18:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Prahar "Thus, each element of A has three indices..." although quite clear from the context, notice that indices of a vector operator are not the same as vector indices, as there is no basis they expand on. "Vector" operator is an unfortunate terminology given to a collection $A_i$ of single operators that happen to all together transform like a tensor under the action of the angular momentum operator. $\endgroup$ – gented Nov 7 '15 at 21:22
  • $\begingroup$ Minor remark: although $[\boldsymbol A,\boldsymbol B]$ is a rank-2 tensor, in three dimensions it is sometimes (implicitly) mapped into a vector by Hodge duality. This justifies formula $[\boldsymbol L,\boldsymbol L]=i\boldsymbol L$ sometimes find in the literature. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Jul 9 '18 at 21:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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