The Poisson bracket of two functions $f$ and $g$ is defined as $$\{f,g\}=\sum\limits_l\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_l}\frac{\partial g}{\partial p_l}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial p_l}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_l}\right).$$ I want to show that $$\{L_i,F(\vec{x})\} = [\vec{x}\times\vec{\nabla}]_i F(\vec{x}),$$ where $L_i$ is a component of the angular momentum vector $\vec{L} = \vec{x}\times\vec{p}$ and $F(\vec{x})$ is some arbitrary function. Using that $$L_i = \epsilon_{ijk}x_jp_k,$$ I arrive at (note that $\partial_i = \displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$) $$\begin{align}\{L_i,F(\vec{x})\} &= \sum\limits_l\left(\frac{\partial (\epsilon_{ijk}x_jp_k)}{\partial x_l}\frac{\partial F(\vec{x})}{\partial p_l}-\frac{\partial (\epsilon_{ijk}x_jp_k)}{\partial p_l}\frac{\partial F(\vec{x})}{\partial x_l}\right) \\ &= -\epsilon_{ijk}x_j\partial_k F(\vec{x}) \\& = -[\vec{x}\times\vec{\nabla}]_i F(\vec{x})\end{align}$$ (since the first term vanished because $F(\vec{x})$ does not depend on $\vec{p}$) which is almost the desired result. The exercise asks me explicitly to prove the formula without the minus sign. So, what could be the reason why I get one and how could I get rid of that problem?


closed as unclear what you're asking by ACuriousMind Dec 6 '16 at 15:39

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why do you think you can get "rid" of the minus sign? Your result is correct. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Dec 6 '16 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind The trouble is that the formula I have to prove differs from the formula I derived by a minus sign. I've edited my post to make that clearer (hopefully). $\endgroup$ – MeMeansMe Dec 6 '16 at 16:05