Angular momentum raising lowering operator

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the commutation relations involving angular momentum operators, specifically the raising and lowering operators \( L_\pm \) and their relationship with \( L^2 \). Participants are attempting to derive the expression \([L_\pm, L^2] = 0\) and explore related commutation relations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to expand the commutators and are questioning the validity of their steps. There is discussion on how to handle the \( \pm \) sign in the operators and whether the basic commutation relation \([A,B] = AB - BA\) still applies. Some participants express confusion about the derivation of certain equalities and the cancellation of terms.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their attempts and questioning each other's reasoning. Some guidance has been offered regarding the handling of the \( \pm \) sign and the expansion of commutators, but there is no explicit consensus on the derivations being correct.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of deriving results from angular momentum operator properties, and there is an emphasis on understanding the algebraic manipulation involved in commutation relations.

v_pino
Messages
156
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Derive [itex][L_\pm , L^2]=0[/itex]



Homework Equations



[itex]L_{\pm}=L_x \pm iL_y[/itex]


The Attempt at a Solution



[itex][L_\pm , L^2]=[L_x,L_x^2] \pm i[L_y,L_y^2]=[L_x,L_x]L_x + L_x[L_x,L_x] \pm i([L_y,L_y]L_y+L_y[L_y,L_y])[/itex]

Is this right so far? If so, how do I proceed from this? The books and websites I'll read always just state [itex][L_\pm , L^2]=0[/itex] instead of proving it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[itex]L^{2}=L^{2}_{x}+L^{2}_{y}+L^{2}_{z}[/itex]

Then

[itex][L_{±},L^{2}]=[L_{x}±iL_{y},L^{2}_{x}+L^{2}_{y}][/itex]

which is going to give you some cross terms. Using the fact that [itex][L_{i},L_{j}]=ih\epsilon_{ijk}L_{k}[/itex], you can move some stuff around and cancel terms to arrive at the final answer. I'm not sure how you got to where you are.
 
I'm having some trouble expanding the commutators due to the +/- sign. Is it still [A,B]=AB-BA?
 
Is it still [A,B]=AB-BA?

This is always true.

After writing the commutation relation, and expanding, the ± just becomes [itex]\mp[/itex] when multiplied by -. If you have two like terms, one of which has the sign ± and the other of which has the sign [itex]\mp[/itex], they will cancel.
 
Is the following ok?

[itex][L_\pm,L^2]=(L_x \pm iL_y)(L_x^2+L_y^2)-(L_x^2+L_y^2)(L_x \pm iL_y)[/itex]

[itex][L_\pm,L^2]=L_x^3+L_xL_y^2\pm iL_x^2L_y\pm iL_y^3 -L_x^3 \mp i L_x^2 L_y -L_x L_y^2 \mp iLy^3[/itex]

= 0
 
I tried to do the same as what I did above to prove [itex][L_+,L_-]=2\hbar L_z[/itex] but I got zero instead:

[itex][L_+,L_-]=(L_x +iL_y)(L_x-iL_y)-(L_x-iL_y)(L_x+iL_y)=(L_x^2+L_y^2)-(L_x^2+L_y^2)=0[/itex]

I found the following derivation but I don't understand how the last three equalities were arrived at:

[itex][L_+,L_-]=[L_x+iL_y,L_x-iL_y]=i[L_y,L_x]-i[L_x,L_y]=\hbar (L_z+L_z)=2\hbar L_z[/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K