In an introductory Quantum Mechanics textbook, I found the following statement:

For two Hamiltonians $H$ and $H'$, non commuting with each other, but commuting with the same group of translations ${\cal{T}} (\vec{R})$ an eigenvector of $H$ can't be an eigenvector of $H'$.

But I don't see how $[H,H']\neq 0$ implies that $[H,H']$ cannot vanish for a specific eigenvector $\alpha$ of $H$, making it a shared eigenvector with $H'$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What textbook are you referring to? $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 18 '12 at 12:47
  • $\begingroup$ French QM textbook by Aslangul: amazon.fr/… The chapter on electrons in a crystal. $\endgroup$ – Just_a_wannabe Oct 18 '12 at 13:38

By the following example you see that indeed $[H,H']\ne 0$ doesn't imply that there is no eigenvector-kernel.

enter image description here

The context of the question is still not completely clear but I assume the translation is supposed to be onto and so the situation is as such: If there were a translation $T$ communing with both operators, it would also commute with the commutator. And then by $$[H,H'](T\alpha)=T([H,H']\alpha)=0,$$

you would spread the kernel via $\alpha \rightarrow T\alpha$ to cover all of space, hence making $[H,H']$ annihilate everything. That means the Hamiltonians commute - a contradition.

  • $\begingroup$ I think you got the point at the end (plus thanks for the numerical example). The context is about Bloch theorem and Bloch wave-functions, to describe for example electrons in a periodic static crystal. $\endgroup$ – Just_a_wannabe Oct 18 '12 at 13:57

Leaving the part about the translations aside, one could formulate the eigenvalue equation $H\alpha = \epsilon\alpha$, while $H^{\prime}$, applied to $\alpha$, generally equals some function $f(\alpha)$. The commutator would then be:

$$ [H,H^{\prime}]\alpha = HH^{\prime}\alpha - H^{\prime}H\alpha =Hf(\alpha) - \epsilon f(\alpha) \neq 0 \\ \Rightarrow Hf(\alpha) \neq \epsilon f(\alpha) $$

This apparently only holds true if $f(\alpha)$ is not just $\alpha$ times a constant; thus, $\alpha$ cannot be an eigenvector to $H^{\prime}$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hum.. I'm not sure about your view on the problem, you're postulating from the beginning that $\alpha$ is not annihilated by the commutator, which is what I am questioning. Why should it annihilate every eigenvectors of $H$? $\endgroup$ – Just_a_wannabe Oct 18 '12 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I think I understand your question now. You want to know if there are for the "general" non-vanishing commutator $[H,H^{\prime}] \neq 0 $ any "special" eigenfunctions $\alpha$ which make the expression $[H,H^{\prime}] \alpha$ vanish. However, the commutator is indepedent of the function you are applying it to; in other words, $\alpha$ may be just any function. (If I am not mistaken, it won't even necessarily have to be an eigenfunction of $H$ or $H^{\prime}$). The only case where the expression would indeed equal zero is $\alpha$ being the zero vector, which is a non-physical solution. $\endgroup$ – Antimon Oct 18 '12 at 15:22

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.