Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General

Commutation relations for periodic operators

Daniel Loss, Kieran J. Mullen

Published Mar 7, 1992• 11 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Although periodic variables are common in quantum systems, there is still some question of their proper commutation relations. The authors show that the standard commutation relations, when applied carefully, do not lead to inconsistencies. They discuss other approaches to the problem in the literature.
DOI
10.1088/0305-4470/25/5/005

Related papers

Periodic Coordinates in Quantum Mechanics

William Silvert

Zak has recently pointed out apparent inconsistencies in the formulation of problems involving periodic systems, and he has questioned whether the commonly accepted correspondence between quantum mechanical and classical variables holds for such systems. We show that the difficulties found with periodic systems arise equally in nonperiodic systems, and that the problems encountered in defining certain quantum-mechanical observables are related to the ill-defined nature of the corresponding classical variables.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Dec 15, 1970•0 citations

Concluding and Proving the Commutation Relation of Operators often Used in Quantum Mechanics

Wan Meng

In order to help physical students really understanding the commutation relation of operators,we analyze,conclude and summarize the commutation relations of operators often used in quantum mechanics,which provide some references for teaching of quantum mechanics course as well.

Journal of Zunyi Normal College•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations

Chapter 10. Commutation Relations in Quantum Mechanics

Dennis Morris

De Gruyter eBooks•May 27, 2016•0 citations

Modified Heisenberg Commutations Relations and Its Standard Hamiltonian Interpretation

Mauricio Contreras G., Roberto Ortiz, José Mauricio González

This paper analyzes the modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relations or GUP, from a standard Hamiltonian point of view. For a one-dimensional system, a such modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relation is defined by the commutator between a position x^ and a momentum operator p^ (called the deformed momentum), which becomes a function F of the same operators: x^,p^=F(x^,p^), that is, the Heisenberg algebra closes itself in general in a nonlinear way. The function F also depends on a parameter that controls the deformation of the Heisenberg algebra in such a way that for a null parameter value, one recovers the usual Heisenberg algebra x^,p^0=iℏI. Thus, it naturally raises the following questions: What does a relation of this type mean in Hamiltonian theory from a standard point of view? Is the deformed momentum the canonical variable conjugate to the position in such a relation? Moreover, what are the canonical variables in this model? The answer to these questions comes from the existence of two different phase spaces: The first one, called the non-deformed phase (which is obtained for control parameter value equal to zero), is defined by the Cartesian x^ coordinate and its non-deformed conjugate momentum p^0, which satisfies the standard quantum mechanical Heisenberg commutation relation. The second phase space, the deformed one, is given by the deformed momentum p^ and a new position coordinate y^, which is its canonical conjugate variable, so y^ and p^ also satisfy standard commutation relations. We construct a classical canonical transformation that maps the non-deformed phase space into the deformed one for a specific class of deformation functions F. Additionally, a quantum mechanical operator transformation is found between the two non-commutative phase spaces, which allows the Schrödinger equation to be written in both spaces. Thus, there are two equivalent quantum mechanical descriptions of the same physical process associated with a deformed commutation relation.

Mathematics•Dec 3, 2025•0 citations

Note on the Commutation Relations in Quantum Mechanics

Yoshiaki Hashimoto

•Sep 1, 1952•0 citations

Conceptual Problems Related to Time and Mass in Quantum Theory

Daniel M. Greenberger

The concept of proper time cannot be just taken over from classical theory and applied to quantum theory. There are a number of serious ambiguities related to it. Similarly, the concept of mass has some inconsistencies attached to it. We argue that both of these concepts only make sense if they are included in the theory as dynamical variables, and subsequently as conjugate operators. We discuss the necessary uncertainty principle between them.

arXiv:1011.3709•Nov 16, 2010•12 citations
Zak has recently pointed out apparent inconsistencies in the formulation of problems involving periodic systems, and he has questioned whether the commonly accepted correspondence between quantum mechanical and classical variables holds for such systems. We show that the difficulties found with periodic systems arise equally in nonperiodic systems, and that the problems encountered in defining certain quantum-mechanical observables are related to the ill-defined nature of the corresponding classical variables.
This paper analyzes the modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relations or GUP, from a standard Hamiltonian point of view. For a one-dimensional system, a such modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relation is defined by the commutator between a position x^ and a momentum operator p^ (called the deformed momentum), which becomes a function F of the same operators: x^,p^=F(x^,p^), that is, the Heisenberg algebra closes itself in general in a nonlinear way. The function F also depends on a parameter that controls the deformation of the Heisenberg algebra in such a way that for a null parameter value, one recovers the usual Heisenberg algebra x^,p^0=iℏI. Thus, it naturally raises the following questions: What does a relation of this type mean in Hamiltonian theory from a standard point of view? Is the deformed momentum the canonical variable conjugate to the position in such a relation? Moreover, what are the canonical variables in this model? The answer to these questions comes from the existence of two different phase spaces: The first one, called the non-deformed phase (which is obtained for control parameter value equal to zero), is defined by the Cartesian x^ coordinate and its non-deformed conjugate momentum p^0, which satisfies the standard quantum mechanical Heisenberg commutation relation. The second phase space, the deformed one, is given by the deformed momentum p^ and a new position coordinate y^, which is its canonical conjugate variable, so y^ and p^ also satisfy standard commutation relations. We construct a classical canonical transformation that maps the non-deformed phase space into the deformed one for a specific class of deformation functions F. Additionally, a quantum mechanical operator transformation is found between the two non-commutative phase spaces, which allows the Schrödinger equation to be written in both spaces. Thus, there are two equivalent quantum mechanical descriptions of the same physical process associated with a deformed commutation relation.