1
$\begingroup$

I've been trying to prove some commutator identities of angular momentum, and I don't want to go brute force and prove for each coordinate seperately. So I tried using the Levi-Civita formalism for the cross product-

$$[\mathbf{a}\times \mathbf{b}]_i=\epsilon _{ijk}a_jb_k$$

My question is, how do I treat $\epsilon_{ijk}$ within a commutator.

I tried reading some proofs on this site, and follow the apparent rules they used. But I still don't understand exactly how it is done, as I got stuck here:

$$[P_i, L_j]=[P_i, \epsilon_{ijk} X_k P_i]=\epsilon_{ijk}([P_i,X_k]P_i+X_k[P_i,P_i])=\epsilon_{ijk}[P_i,X_k]P_i=\epsilon_{ijk}(-i\hbar\delta_{ik})P_i$$

It seems to me like this equals zero, since the $\delta$ forces the $\epsilon_{ijk}$ to be $\epsilon_{kjk}=0$.

I know this is wrong, but what is right?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Your expression has $i$ as an "external" index, if you also use it as a mute index with summation implied it gets confusing and you are bound to make mistakes. $\endgroup$
    – fqq
    Commented Jun 7, 2016 at 9:43
  • $\begingroup$ @fqq are you talking about $i$ the imaginary unit? I think that seeing it next to $\hbar$ prevents the confusion. But thanks, your point is taken. I still don't understand what happens here with the $\delta$ $\endgroup$
    – Whyka
    Commented Jun 7, 2016 at 9:45
  • $\begingroup$ No, I'm talking about the index. $\endgroup$
    – fqq
    Commented Jun 7, 2016 at 9:47
  • $\begingroup$ Are they not the same?.. Where should I note a difference? $\endgroup$
    – Whyka
    Commented Jun 7, 2016 at 9:48

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

$$ [P_i,L_j]=\varepsilon_{jkl} ([P_i, X_k]P_l+X_k[P_i,P_l])=-\mathrm{i}\hbar \varepsilon_{jkl}\delta_{ki}P_l = -\mathrm{i} \varepsilon_{jil} P_l = \mathrm{i}\varepsilon_{ijl} P_l$$

Which shows that as expected $P_k$ is a vector.

The lesson here is that you should not use the same letter twice as an external index and a dummy index. Here $i, j$ are external indices, so when writing the cross product with implied sum you should use something like $L_j=\sum_{kl}\varepsilon_{jkl} X_kP_l=\varepsilon_{jkl} X_kP_l$.

$\endgroup$
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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