Addition of three angular momentum

stefano
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
How can I couple three angular momentum?
I am confused about this, in fact I don't understand how can I do this...
I need to build eigenstates of total angular momentum for three particles J=j_1+j_2+j_3, someone can help me?

Thank's
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you can add two angular momentum, I don't see any problem. If you are able to deal with j_1 and j_2, say J_{dummy} = j_1 \otimes j_2 then the remaining is J= J_{dummy} \otimes j_3 :biggrin:

Of course, it is easy to speak of the general j_1 \otimes j_2 without any specific value for them, whereas giving the general properties of j_1 \otimes j_2 \otimes j_3 \otimes j_4 \otimes j_5 \otimes j_6 \cdots would not only be difficult, it would be useless.
 
Ok, but is it the same way to couple j_12=j_1+j_2 and then J=j_12+j_3 or first j_23=j_2+j_3 and then J=j_1+j_23 ?
 
yes ! The tensor product is associative.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Tensor_algebra
Hey, welcome in PF by the way !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
stefano said:
Ok, but is it the same way to couple j_12=j_1+j_2 and then J=j_12+j_3 or first j_23=j_2+j_3 and then J=j_1+j_23 ?

....
Yes but, you will get different representations of states of total J. humanino is right, if you can couple 2, then you can couple 3 or ... But, the algebra becomes horrific, and ... We are talking Clebsch-Gordan coefficients applied to Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, which really gets ugly for 6 or 12 individual particles. However, there's a lot of very elegant work , much due to G. Racah, that makes coupling of angular momenta much less formidable. (For coupling three angular momenta, one works with a 3-j symbol, a specially normalized and symmetrized set/product of CG coefficients.) For me the bible is Edmonds' Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics, but it is old.
I'm sure a Google will produce lots on the subject.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
  • Like
Likes Lusypher
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top