0
$\begingroup$

Assume the potential $V$ is not just a function of position. I'm trying to compute $[V, L_i]$. This is what I have so far:

$$ [V, L_i] = [V, \epsilon_{ijk}x_jp_k] = \epsilon_{ijk}(x_j[V,p_k]+[V,x_j]p_k).$$

Now, I could also do the following; (let $i=x$)

$$[V, L_x] = [V, yp_z - zp_y] = y[V,p_z] - z[V, p_y].$$

In which case I wouldn't get the same answer as before, where I used the implicit summation convention. This bothers me, as the second term in the first calculation doens't seem to vanish, since $V$ could well depend on the momentum.

I know both expressions are correct, and I am tempted to simply assume that the potential $V$ commutes with the coordinates $x_i$, but I need to motivate that assumption.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your second expression is equal to the first term of the r.h.s. of your first expression for i=x. You dropped the second term. In the second part of your question, you treat A and B as numbers in 1) but as operators in 2). This may give confusion. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Jun 17, 2018 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ I'm still stuck with computing the commutator though. The second term (in the very first equation) needs to dissapear, or so it seems to me at least. I don't know how to do that. $\endgroup$
    – PaleBlueDot
    Jun 17, 2018 at 15:43
  • $\begingroup$ Do I simply assume that $V$ and the $x_i$'s commute? Because then I do get what I expected to get. $\endgroup$
    – PaleBlueDot
    Jun 17, 2018 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ If you begin assuming the potential is not just a function of position then I doubt there is more that you can do. $\endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Jun 17, 2018 at 22:00

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.