# Commutator relation $[p, px^n]$? [closed]

This seems like a really straightforward problem that nevertheless stumps me.

We have $\frac{i}{\hbar}[p,px^n] = \frac{i}{\hbar}(p[p,x^n] + [p,p]x^n)$

Now I have previously found that $[p,x^n] = - i \hbar n x^{n-1}$ and we know that $[p,p] = 0$ by axiom.

So we should have $\frac{i}{\hbar}(p[p,x^n] + [p,p]x^n) = \frac{i}{\hbar}p(-i \hbar n x^{n-1}) = pnx^{n-1}.$ But I know this cannot be the right answer because it should not be the partial derivative of $px^n$ with respect to x. I'm obviously missing something, but what?

## closed as off-topic by Kyle Kanos, sammy gerbil, Qmechanic♦Sep 16 '17 at 7:02

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – Kyle Kanos, sammy gerbil, Qmechanic
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• – Kyle Kanos Sep 13 '17 at 12:51
• Thanks, but none of those seem to apply. I think this is because $px^n$ is a function of two variables (operators)... – LC Nielsen Sep 13 '17 at 13:04

It looks right to me. A function $f$ satisfies $\frac{i}{\hbar}[p,\,f]=[\partial_x,\,f]=\partial_x f$ since $[\partial_x,\,f]g=\partial_x (fg)-f\partial_x g = (\partial_x f)g$.

• The answer to the question should supposedly show that in general, $\frac{i}{\hbar}[p,G(p,x)] \neq \frac{\partial}{\partial x} G(p,x)$. As opposed to if G is a function of x only. Also, the practice system I feed the answers into doesn't accept it... – LC Nielsen Sep 13 '17 at 13:02
• Got it - all I needed to do was to expand to $- i \hbar n (n-1) x ^{n-2} + n x ^{n-1} p$... I feels silly now. – LC Nielsen Sep 13 '17 at 14:13

In general, for any function of $f(x)$, the action of $\hat x$ and $\hat p$ is given as $$\hat xf(x)=xf(x)\, ,\qquad \hat pf(x)=-i\hbar \partial_xf(x)=-i\hbar f'(x)$$ so, for $\hat p\hat x^n$, you simply apply in proper sequence.

Thus \begin{align} [p,px^n]f(x)&=-i\hbar \partial_x (-i\hbar \partial_x) x^n f(x) - (-i\hbar \partial_x)x^n(-i\hbar \partial_x)f(x)\, ,\\ &=-\hbar^2 \partial_x^2(x^n f(x))+\hbar^2(\partial_x x^n f'(x))\, . \end{align} Since you can use the replacements $$f'(x)\to \frac{i}{\hbar}\hat pf(x)\qquad f''(x)\to -\frac{1}{\hbar^2}\hat p^2f(x)$$ and $f(x)$ is arbitary, you should be able to eliminate $f(x)$ at the very end to get a "clean" answer in terms of operators only (which will not be a simple derivative.)

• Aha, so let's see... \begin{align} -\hbar^2 \partial_x^2(x^n f(x))+\hbar^2(\partial_x x^n f'(x))\, . \end{align} Well, we have $f'(x) = \partial_x f(x)$ so the answer should be... $\hbar^2(-\partial_x^2 x^n + \partial_x x^n \partial_x) = \hbar^2(-n (n-1) x^{n-2} + nx^{n-1} \partial_x)$ Is that right? – LC Nielsen Sep 13 '17 at 13:17
• You can further simplify but you get the idea. – ZeroTheHero Sep 13 '17 at 13:20
• It actually will be the simple derivative. $n p x^{n-1}$ I mean – OON Sep 13 '17 at 13:20
• All I needed to do was expand it to $- i \hbar n (n-1) x ^{n-2} + n x ^{n-1} p$... I feel really silly now. – LC Nielsen Sep 13 '17 at 14:18
• when you don't know it's more formidable than it looks. Best of luck. – ZeroTheHero Sep 13 '17 at 14:22