1
$\begingroup$

Consider the usual commutation relations of two scalar fields

$$\left[\phi_{m}\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right),\pi_{n}\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right]=\boldsymbol{i}\delta_{mn}\delta\left(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}\right),$$

$$\left[\phi_{m}\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right),\phi_{n}\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right]=\left[\pi_{m}\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right),\pi_{n}\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right]=0.$$

  1. What's the commutator of $\left[\partial_{i}\phi_{m}\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right),\phi_{n}\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right]$, where $\partial_{i}\equiv\partial/\partial x^{i}$ is one of the three spatial derivatives?

  2. What about $\left[\partial_{i}\phi_{m}\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right),\pi_{n}\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right]$ ?

Attempt 1:

$$\begin{array}{cl} \left[\partial_{i}\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right),\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right] & =\partial_{i}\left[\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right),\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right]+\left[\partial_{i},\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right]\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right)\\ & =\left[\partial_{i},\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right]\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right)\\ & =\left(\partial_{i}\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\right)\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right)-\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{y}\right)\partial_{i}\phi\left(t,\boldsymbol{x}\right)\\ & =? \end{array}$$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What prevents you from deducing it yourself? $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jun 20 '17 at 18:47
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused by the derivative. $\endgroup$ – Bella Jun 20 '17 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ Do you at least have an attempt at a solution? This may help us to deduce what the difficulty is. $\endgroup$ – probably_someone Jun 20 '17 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ @probably_someone Please check my attempt. Can you help? $\endgroup$ – Bella Jun 20 '17 at 19:58
2
$\begingroup$

Since we're not taking time derivatives, this is actually a pretty simple thing, but something that, for some reason, doesn't really pop out on a first viewing of a problem like this.

The confusion perhaps arises from the fact that you have two types of operators acting on different spaces. You have the derivative operator $\partial_i$ acting on the space of functions from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to some general algebra of fields. You also have the field operators themselves, acting on your Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Since these two operators act on different spaces, then we have

$$\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}\phi(\textbf{x},t),\phi(\textbf{y},t)\right]=\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}\left[\phi(\textbf{x},t),\phi(\textbf{y},t)\right]=0.$$

That is to say, you can pull out the derivative since only the first term in the commutator depends on $\textbf{x}$. Similarly, we have

$$\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}\phi(\textbf{x},t),\pi(\textbf{y},t)\right]=\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}\left[\phi(\textbf{x},t),\pi(\textbf{y},t)\right]=i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}\delta(\textbf{x}-\textbf{y}).$$

I don't know what it is about this question that trips people up (including myself the first time I was faced with something like this), but it's a lot simpler than it's made out to be.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think it's the fact that we're never told in most cases that the derivative is a different kind of operator than the field operators. $\endgroup$ – probably_someone Jun 20 '17 at 22:26
1
$\begingroup$

Here is one formal way to think about it:

  1. Use the Jacobi identity (JI) for commutators,

  2. and use the fact that a spatial derivative $\partial_x$ satisfies Leibniz product rule (LPR): $$ [\partial_x, f]g~\equiv~\partial_x (fg)-f(\partial_x g)~\stackrel{LPR}{=}~(\partial_x f)g\quad\Rightarrow\quad [\partial_x, f]~\stackrel{LPR}{=}~ (\partial_x f).$$

Then

$$ [(\partial_x \phi (x)), \pi (y)]~\stackrel{LPR}{=}~[[\partial_x,\phi (x)],\pi (y)] ~\stackrel{JI}{=}~[\partial_x,[\phi (x),\pi (y)]]-[\phi (x),[\partial_x,\pi (y)]]$$ $$~\stackrel{CCR}{=}~[\partial_x,i\hbar \delta(x\!-\!y)]-[\phi (x),0] ~\stackrel{LPR}{=}~i\hbar (\partial_x\delta(x\!-\!y)) ,$$ and so forth.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your first step can't be correct, because you're ignoring the second term here $\left[\left[\partial_{x},\phi\left(x\right)\right],\pi\left(y\right)\right]=\left[\partial_{x}\phi\left(x\right),\pi\left(y\right)\right]-\left[\phi\left(x\right)\partial_{x},\pi\left(y\right)\right]$. Am I not correct? $\endgroup$ – Bella Jun 20 '17 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ I updated the answer. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jun 20 '17 at 22:39

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.