Angular momentum in whole numbers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between angular momentum and Planck's constant, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics versus classical mechanics. Participants explore the implications of angular momentum being quantized and the challenges of applying classical concepts to quantum systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the angular momentum of any object must be quantized as hn, where n is an integer, based on the dimensions of Planck's constant.
  • Others argue that while this holds in quantum mechanics, for classical objects, the value of n is so large that angular momentum appears continuous.
  • A participant presents a scenario involving a particle moving along the x-axis and questions how changing the reference point affects the allowable speeds if angular momentum is quantized.
  • There is a suggestion that angular momentum should be expressed in terms of h-bar rather than h, with a clarification that classical parameters may not apply to quantum trajectories.
  • Some participants discuss the distinction between orbital and spin angular momentum, noting that spin can take half-integer values.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the basic ideas of quantum mechanics and questions whether certain variables should be adjusted in the context of the uncertainty principle.
  • Another participant compares the behavior of a moving particle to that of an ocean wave, suggesting a need for deeper understanding through quantum mechanics texts.
  • References to the uncertainty principle and commutation relations are made, indicating a more complex relationship than initially presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the application of classical mechanics to quantum systems, with no consensus reached on how to reconcile these perspectives. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of quantized angular momentum in various contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in applying classical concepts to quantum mechanics, indicating unresolved assumptions about the nature of angular momentum and the behavior of particles in quantum systems.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum mechanics, particularly in understanding the nuances of angular momentum and the implications of quantization in different contexts.

snoopies622
Messages
852
Reaction score
29
The dimension of Planck's constant h (ML2/T) is also the dimension of angular momentum. Does it follow that the angular momentum of any object must be hn where n is an integer? I know h was discovered in a different context, but I was just wondering.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It follows from quantum mechanics, not just the units, that L=nh.
For a classical object, n is so large that L appears continuous.
 
Here's the problem I'm having - consider the following scenario:

Using a standard Cartesian coordinate system, a particle of mass m moves along the x-axis in the positive x direction with constant speed v.

Using (0,y) as a reference point (and assuming that v<<c) the scalar value of the particle's angular momentum is ymv. If angular momentum is always hn - where n is an integer - it follows that the particle's speed must be hn/ym.

Since our reference point is arbitrary we can change it to 2y and this would make the allowable speeds of the particle be hn/2ym, which of course includes speeds not included in the set hn/ym.

Since nothing has changed with the particle, why would it now have a different set of allowable speeds?
 
Angular momentum would be in terms of h-bar, rather.
 
Yes, it should be hbar, but I was using units with 2pi=1.
Snoopie, your problem is you are trying to use a classical impact parameter with a quantum trajectory. There is no fixed y.
 
clem said:
...you are trying to use a classical impact parameter with a quantum trajectory. There is no fixed y.

So angular momentum, action, or any other physical quantity with that dimension is precisely defined while all others (distance, energy, etc.) are not?
 
Orbital angular momentum, spin angular momentum. Each are defined by the commutation relations. Spin can be half integer.
 
I'm sorry; I guess I don't really understand even the most basic ideas of quantum mechanics - I thought I did.

Is it the case that y should be replaced with y + Δy and (if the mass m is known with certainty) v should be replaced by v + Δv such that

[tex] <br /> m \Delta y \Delta v = \hbar<br /> [/tex]

while the angular momentum L = m (y + Δy) (v + Δv) is still known to be exactly [itex]n \hbar[/itex] ?
 
No, its more detailed than that. The particle moving is like an ocean wave. How would you describe the position of a wave? You need to look at a simple QM text.
 
  • #10
clem said:
You need to look at a simple QM text.

Is there a specific one you have in mind?
 
  • #11
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Thanks atyy. You always provide great resources!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K