Most theoretical texts on high energy physics make statements like below:

$$[A_i , A_j] = i C^k_{i,j} A_k $$

(I suppose $\hbar$ may or may not be needed) and of course they describe this as being the Lie algebra over some group. I think in this case, what I have just describes is the general lie algebra.

Meanwhile, there is the standard relation found in quantum mechanics texts:

$$[\hat x, \hat p ] = i \hbar$$

My question is two-fold. First, I am confused about the second equation. The way I see it:

$$ [\hat x, \hat p ] = \hat x \hat p - \hat p \hat x $$ which in turn equals: $$ =\hat x \frac{\partial}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \hat x$$ $$ =\hat x \frac{\partial}{\partial x} - 1$$ I may be a bit unclear on that last line above but the way I see it, it sure doesn't equal $i \hbar$.

I guess my question is what gives?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For starters, you may represent $\hat p$ by hermitean $-i\hbar\partial_x$, not your option. Your also mishandled the operators badly in you penultimate line, which the answers alert you to. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Apr 14 '19 at 1:08

$\hat x$ and $\hat p$ are operators, they act on states. In coordinate representation, $\hat x$ becomes the operator that multiplies with $x$, and $\hat p$ becomes the operator that multiplies with $\hbar /i$ and derives with respect to $x$. The meaning of $\left[ {\hat x,\hat p} \right] = \hat x\hat p - \hat p\hat x$ can be expressed on a function: \begin{aligned} \left( {x \cdot \frac{\hbar }{i}\frac{d}{{dx}}\left( \bullet \right) - \frac{\hbar }{i}\frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {x \cdot \bullet } \right)} \right)f\left( x \right) & = x \cdot \frac{\hbar }{i}\frac{d}{{dx}}f\left( x \right) - \frac{\hbar }{i}\frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {x \cdot f\left( x \right)} \right) \\ & = x \cdot \frac{\hbar }{i}\frac{d}{{dx}}f\left( x \right) - \frac{\hbar }{i}x\frac{d}{{dx}}f\left( x \right) - \frac{\hbar }{i}f\left( x \right) \\ & = i\hbar f\left( x \right) \\ \end{aligned}

With other words, the muted product symbol between the operators are the $\circ$ composition symbol, just like when it comes to matrices, $$ABx = \left( {A \circ B} \right)x = A\left( {B\left( x \right)} \right).$$

What you missed is that in coordinate representation, there is a division with $i$ in the definition of $\hat p$ and $\frac{d}{{dx}}x$ means $$\frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {x \cdot \bullet } \right):f\left( x \right) \mapsto \frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {x \cdot f\left( x \right)} \right).$$

  • $\begingroup$ I agree that your answer is technically correct as stated, but I don't see any way that your answer can reconcile the dilemma that $[\hat x, \hat p]$ is suppose to somehow equal $i \hbar$, or even $i$ if we assume that $ \hbar = 1$. $\endgroup$ – the_photon Apr 14 '19 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ @the_photon Do you agree that in the first equation he computed $[\hat{x},\hat{p}] f(x) = i \hbar\,f(x)$ for arbitrary $f$? $\endgroup$ – MannyC Apr 14 '19 at 3:23
  • $\begingroup$ Oh got it! (the edit that was made to the answer cleared things up). Thanks. $\endgroup$ – the_photon Apr 14 '19 at 16:03

The set $\{x, p/i, x^2, (p/i)^2, N = (xp+px)/i\}$ forms the osp(1/2) super-Lie algebra, where $$ \{x, p/i\} = (xp+px)/i = N, \\ \{x, x\} = 2x^2, \\ \{p/i, p/i\} = 2(p/i)^2, $$ obeys the anti-commuting relationship, and the rest observe the commuting Lie relationships. For example $$ [x, N] = xN - Nx = x, \\ [p/i, N] = -p/i. $$ I encourage you to work out the other Lie relationships.


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.