2 spin 1/2 particles in magnetic field

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on solving a quantum mechanics problem involving two spin-1/2 particles in a magnetic field, specifically analyzing the Hamiltonian given by H' = -β S^(1)·S^(2). The participants clarify that the Hamiltonian should be expressed as H = -β(S_x^(1)S_x^(2) + S_y^(1)S_y^(2) + S_z^(1)S_z^(2)). A recommended approach is to utilize the relation (\mathbf{S}_1 + \mathbf{S}_2)^2 to simplify the Hamiltonian and express it in terms of total spin operators and Pauli spin matrices. The final goal is to demonstrate that the Hamiltonian is non-diagonal by identifying a non-zero entry in the 4x4 matrix representation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly spin-1/2 particles.
  • Familiarity with Hamiltonians and their role in quantum systems.
  • Knowledge of Pauli spin matrices and their properties.
  • Ability to manipulate quantum operators and matrix representations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the total spin operator (\mathbf{S}_1 + \mathbf{S}_2)^2 in quantum mechanics.
  • Learn about the properties and applications of Pauli spin matrices in quantum systems.
  • Research methods for calculating matrix elements in quantum mechanics.
  • Explore examples of non-diagonal Hamiltonians and their implications in quantum mechanics.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, particularly those focusing on spin systems and Hamiltonian dynamics. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of quantum particle interactions in magnetic fields.

oww
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


See pdf file: http://www.2shared.com/file/3469465/52e02653/q3_online.html

Its the third problem I'm having trouble with. I'm pretty sure I have the two first questions correct.

Homework Equations


1)[tex]H^{'}_{\uparrow\downarrow,\downarrow\uparrow}=<\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle\left|H^'\right|\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



My idea was to compute the quantity given by 1), but I am not sure how to manage [tex]H^{'} =-\beta S^{(1)}.S^{(2)}=-\beta(S_x ^{(1)}S_x ^{(2)},S_y ^{(1)}S_y ^{(2)},S_z ^{(1)}S_z ^{(2)})[/tex]

Should I try and find [tex]S_y ^{(1)}[/tex], [tex]S_y ^{(2)}[/tex] and the same for the z-spinor matrices. Or is there a smarter way of doing this?

Looking forward to all the help i can get. Oistein
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You've written

[tex]H^{single-quote} =-\beta S^{(1)}.S^{(2)}=-\beta(S_x ^{(1)}S_x ^{(2)},S_y ^{(1)}S_y ^{(2)},S_z ^{(1)}S_z ^{(2)})[/tex]

which you appear to have written as a vector, which it isn't:

[tex]\mathcal{H} = - \beta \mathbf{S}_1 \cdot \mathbf{S}_2 = -\beta \left[S_{x1}S_{x2} + S_{y1}S_{y2} + S_{z1}S_{z2}\right][/tex]

Now, you might not want to solve the hamiltonian in that form. Instead, look at:

[tex](\mathbf{S}_1 + \mathbf{S}_2)^2 = S_1^2 + S_2^2 + 2\mathbf{S}_1 \cdot \mathbf{S}_2[/tex]

Solve for the dot product and substitute that into the Hamiltonian. Having done that, your hamiltonian is expressed in terms of the total spin operator and the spin operators for particle 1 and particle two. These last two are proportional to the Pauli spin matrices, and you should know that [itex]\mathbf{\sigma}^2 = 1[/itex], so S_1^2 and S_2^2 just evaluate to the square of the proportionality factors. So, the only operator whose value you don't know before acting on it with your states to get the matrix element is the total spin operator.
 
Last edited:
Blah, time limit to edit has expired before I was finished editing. What's left to say is that your matrix is 4x4, so to show that the hamiltonian is non-diagonal in your basis states, you just need to find a non-zero non-diagonal entry. The problem seems to tell you which element to check. Do that and you should be done.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K