Can a Rotation of 180º Leave a Spin-2 System Hamiltonian Unchanged?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shetland
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotation System
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a Hamiltonian for a spin-2 system and the effect of a 180º rotation on it. Participants are tasked with demonstrating that this rotation leaves the Hamiltonian unchanged, involving concepts from quantum mechanics related to angular momentum and operator transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the use of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula and matrix representations of spin operators. There are discussions about the transformation properties of spin components under rotation and whether the Hamiltonian can be evaluated by inspection.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the transformation of spin components under rotation, while others are questioning the assumptions about the values of the spin components and their diagonalization. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of these transformations on the Hamiltonian.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the Hamiltonian involves terms that may not all be diagonalized simultaneously, and there is a mention of a potential error in the original problem setup. The discussion reflects on the nature of vector transformations under rotations.

shetland
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
For S = 2, I have the following hamiltonian,
[tex]H=a \left( 2\,{S}^{2}-4\,{S_{{z}}}^{2} \right) +4\,b \left( (\left { S_+}^{3}) +({S_-}^{3})[/tex]I'm to show that a rotation of 180º,

[tex]e^{-i \pi S_x/ \hbar}[/tex]

leaves the hamiltonian unchanged.

I started thinking I could use the baker-hausdorff formula, but now not so sure - you would get something like, H + commutation terms. The first would be obvious zero, [Sx, S^2], but the other ones get messy.
Is the way to do this to find the matrix rep for Sx, S+, S-, then you would have the hamiltonian in matrix rep, along with the operator, and then do the series expansion for the exp?
I guess this would satisfy another part to this quesiton, which is to get the rep for Dm'm matrix. But it seems to me that one should be able to answer the first part without directly calculating the matrix?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is an easy task when you remember that the [tex]S_i[/tex] transform as vector under rotations. How do the components of a vector change under rotation by [tex]180^\circ[/tex] about the x-axis?

Edit: Ok, great. Now everything is fine.
 
Last edited:
Monkey,

I guess I'm tired. I looked a bit closer - the problem in the book is quite small. I have a misplaced parenthesis now - so you can do this by inspection, right?

We know the value of [tex]S_i[/tex] is 2[tex]\hbar[/tex], so that the rotation is then [tex]2\pi[/tex], which brings the system back to original.
 
You don't actually know what the "value" of the spin components are. In fact, they can't all be diagonalized so they can't all have definite values at the same time. However, you can definitely do it by inspection. Like I said, if I rotate by [tex]180^\circ[/tex] degress about the x-axis, how do vector components changes. Cleary the x component is unchanged so you have [tex]U S_x U^\dag = S_x[/tex]. What happens to [tex]S_y[/tex] and [tex]S_z[/tex]?
 
right. I'm not thinking. Of course they can't all be diagonalized. Thanks.

I thought about it as you suggested, clearly y and z are rotated by [tex]\cos{\pi}[/tex], z-> -z, y-> -y. For the first part of the hamiltonian, obviously S_z^2is unchanged, as is S^2, so its just a matter of the S± terms. I guess I can see since S± = S_x ± iS_y that the net result is to leave H unchanged (since the Sy terms cancel one another due to the ±?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K