Angular Moment Operator Vector Identity Question

In summary, this vector identity for the angular momentum operator (without the ##i##) was stated without proof. Is there anywhere I can look to to actually find a good example/proof on how this works? This is in spherical coordinates, and I can't seem to find this vector identity anywhere. I've tried Googling for hours now, and I've legitimately come up with no example with a good accompanying explanation, of how this particular identity is working.
  • #1
Chronum
21
0
In my EM class, this vector identity for the angular momentum operator (without the ##i##) was stated without proof. Is there anywhere I can look to to actually find a good example/proof on how this works? This is in spherical coordinates, and I can't seem to find this vector identity anywhere. I've tried Googling for hours now, and I've legitimately come up with no example with a good accompanying explanation, of how this particular identity is working. This is the identity in question. Any help would be appreciated.
##
(\vec{r}\times\nabla)\psi =
\nabla\times \vec{r}\psi - \psi(\nabla\times \vec{r})
##

EDIT: I've also seen this identity on Wikipedia, which _may_ satisfy my requirement if I'm thinking of the curl operator right.​
##\nabla \times(\psi \vec{r}) = \psi(\nabla \times \vec{r}) + \nabla\psi\times\vec{r}##
For the first term on the RHS, we can use the anticommutativity of the cross product, and state​
##\psi(\nabla \times \vec{r}) = - \psi (\vec{r} \times \nabla)##
and then the identity becomes a trivial moving around of terms. Am I thinking about that in the right way?​
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It shouldn't be that hard to show using product rule of derivative but for some reason I got the sign reversed.
$$
(\mathbf r \times \nabla)_i \psi = \epsilon_{ijk}r_j\partial_k \psi
$$
but ##r_j\partial_k \psi = \partial_k (r_j \psi) - \psi \partial_k r_j##. Hence
$$
(\mathbf r \times \nabla)_i \psi = \epsilon_{ijk}(\partial_k (r_j \psi) - \psi \partial_k r_j) = -\epsilon_{ikj}\partial_k (r_j \psi) + \epsilon_{ikj}\psi \partial_k r_j = -(\nabla\times\mathbf r \psi)_i + \psi(\nabla \times \mathbf r)_i
$$
Still trying to figure out where I went wrong.
EDIT: The above is correct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Chronum
  • #3
blue_leaf77 said:
It shouldn't be that hard to show using product rule of derivative but for some reason I got the sign reversed.
$$
(\mathbf r \times \nabla)_i \psi = \epsilon_{ijk}r_j\partial_k \psi
$$
but ##r_j\partial_k \psi = \partial_k (r_j \psi) - \psi \partial_k r_j##. Hence
$$
(\mathbf r \times \nabla)_i \psi = \epsilon_{ijk}(\partial_k (r_j \psi) - \psi \partial_k r_j) = -\epsilon_{ikj}\partial_k (r_j \psi) + \epsilon_{ikj}\psi \partial_k r_j = -(\nabla\times\mathbf r \psi)_i + \psi(\nabla \times \mathbf r)_i
$$
Still trying to figure out where I went wrong.
Thank you so much. I've never really been introduced the inner nitty gritties of the vector calculus identites/their sources, so this tells me I should probably acquaint myself better with them.
 
  • #4
It looks like you got this identity not correct:
Chronum said:
##
(\vec{r}\times\nabla)\psi =
\nabla\times \vec{r}\psi - \psi(\nabla\times \vec{r})
##​
whereas mine is, check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_calculus_identities#Curl_2
Chronum said:
For the first term on the RHS, we can use the anticommutativity of the cross product, and state​
ψ(∇×⃗r)=−ψ(⃗r×∇)\psi(\nabla \times \vec{r}) = - \psi (\vec{r} \times \nabla)
and then the identity becomes a trivial moving around of terms. Am I thinking about that in the right way?​
No, that's incorrect. The LHS is a vector but the RHS is a vector operator. While curl operation and vector cross product share many properties, their anticommutativity property is different.
 
  • Like
Likes Chronum and PeroK
  • #5
blue_leaf77 said:
It shouldn't be that hard to show using product rule of derivative but for some reason I got the sign reversed.
$$
(\mathbf r \times \nabla)_i \psi = \epsilon_{ijk}r_j\partial_k \psi
$$
but ##r_j\partial_k \psi = \partial_k (r_j \psi) - \psi \partial_k r_j##. Hence
$$
(\mathbf r \times \nabla)_i \psi = \epsilon_{ijk}(\partial_k (r_j \psi) - \psi \partial_k r_j) = -\epsilon_{ikj}\partial_k (r_j \psi) + \epsilon_{ikj}\psi \partial_k r_j = -(\nabla\times\mathbf r \psi)_i + \psi(\nabla \times \mathbf r)_i
$$
Still trying to figure out where I went wrong.

I think you're right and the OP is wrong.
 
  • #6
PeroK said:
I think you're right and the OP is wrong.
Yes, just confirmed it from the Wikipedia link I shared above.
 
  • #7
blue_leaf77 said:
Yes, just confirmed it from the Wikipedia link I shared above.
Yes, just saw it.

@Chronum there are no shortcuts with this sort of identity. You just have to work through each component.

I tend to use the determinant form of the cross product and just do the first component. The others generally follow by the cyclic symmetry.
 
  • #8
PeroK said:
Yes, just saw it.

@Chronum there are no shortcuts with this sort of identity. You just have to work through each component.

I tend to use the determinant form of the cross product and just do the first component. The others generally follow by the cyclic symmetry.
Maybe this is also complicated by the fact that I'm trying to do this in spherical coordinates, when I can potentially do it in cartesian. I'm uploading a snippet of the notes I'm looking at, just making sure I'm not misinterpreting anything. The given relation holds true without the extra term because we're dealing with a radial vector here.
 

Attachments

  • 2018-02-10 04_00_52-Notes_Multipoles_Dynamics_Luca.pdf.png
    2018-02-10 04_00_52-Notes_Multipoles_Dynamics_Luca.pdf.png
    3.4 KB · Views: 508
  • #9
Chronum said:
Maybe this is also complicated by the fact that I'm trying to do this in spherical coordinates, when I can potentially do it in cartesian.
If ##\mathbf r## is a position vector (you call it radial vector) then yes the relation in your note is correct after multiplication with -1 in either sides of the equation. Have you checked the wiki link in post#4?
Why not trying what Perok suggested in post #7 by verifying the first component, e.g. the x-component?
Moreover, the first relation (the corrected version) you posted in post #1 holds for any vector field ##\mathbf r## and scalar field ##\psi## regardless of the coordinate system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Chronum and PeroK

1. What is an Angular Moment Operator?

An angular moment operator is a mathematical operator that represents the angular momentum of a quantum mechanical system. It is used to describe the rotation and orientation of particles in a system.

2. How is Angular Moment Operator related to Quantum Mechanics?

The angular moment operator is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, as it is used to describe the rotational behavior of particles in a quantum system. It is a key component in solving quantum mechanical problems and understanding the behavior of particles at a microscopic level.

3. What is the Vector Identity for Angular Moment Operators?

The vector identity for angular moment operators is a mathematical equation that describes the relationship between different angular moment operators. It is commonly used in calculations involving angular moment operators and their properties.

4. How is the Angular Moment Operator Vector Identity used in Physics?

The Angular Moment Operator Vector Identity is used in physics to simplify and solve complex problems involving angular moment operators. It allows scientists to relate different angular moment operators and calculate their properties more efficiently.

5. Can the Angular Moment Operator Vector Identity be applied to classical mechanics?

Yes, the Angular Moment Operator Vector Identity can be applied to classical mechanics, but it is mainly used in the field of quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics, it is known as the classical moment of inertia and is used to describe the rotational motion of rigid bodies.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
996
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Calculus
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top