Angular momentum raising/lowering operators

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties and implications of angular momentum raising and lowering operators, specifically focusing on the eigenvalue equations associated with these operators. Participants explore the nature of eigenstates in the context of these operators and their application in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the equation J+ | j m > = ħ √{(j+1)-m(m+1)} | j , m+1> cannot be an eigenvalue equation since it changes the ket from | j, m> to | j, m+1>.
  • Others agree that raising/lowering operators do not have eigenkets as they change the eigenket, but they note that coherent states can be eigenstates of the lowering operator.
  • A participant mentions that coherent states are not eigenstates of the raising operator and discusses the specific context of angular momentum operators in the Schwinger representation.
  • There is a correction regarding the eigenvalue equation for J+, with a participant pointing out a potential error in the expression involving the square root.
  • Some participants clarify that the raising and lowering operators are methods for solving equations related to angular momentum states, rather than providing eigenstates themselves.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that raising/lowering operators do not have eigenstates in the traditional sense, but there is disagreement regarding the nature of coherent states and their relationship to these operators. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these operators on eigenstates.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of eigenstates and the specific contexts in which the raising and lowering operators are applied. Some mathematical steps and assumptions are not fully explored.

dyn
Messages
774
Reaction score
63
Hi. I have come across the following statement - the eigenvalue equation for J+ is given by

J+ | j m > = ħ √{(j+1)-m(m+1)} | j , m+1>

My question is this - how can this be an eigenvalue equaton as the ket | j, m> has changed to | j , m+1> ? Surely the raising/lowering operators don't have eigenkets as they always change the eigenket ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah it's indeed not an eigenvalue equation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dyn
dyn said:
Surely the raising/lowering operators don't have eigenkets as they always change the eigenket ?

This is not correct. Raising/lowering operators will always change kets that are eigenstates of the number operator. But they will not necessarily always change other kets.

In fact, it is straightforward to construct a state that is an eigenstate of the lowering operator. These states are called "coherent states". See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_states#Quantum_mechanical_definition

There is no similar construction for the raising operator, however. One way of seeing why is to look at how a coherent state is expressed when you use the eigenstates of the number operator as the basis. In this basis, a coherent state has just the right coefficients for each number eigenstate so that, when the lowering operator is applied, each number eigenstate is "lowered" into the one below it and has just the right coefficient for that new number eigenstate. The "lowest" number eigenstate in the chain, the state with zero particles, gets annihilated, so it just "moves out of the way", so to speak. But this trick won't work for the raising operator, because there is no state that you can apply the raising operator to to get the number eigenstate with zero particles.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dyn
PeterDonis said:
In fact, it is straightforward to construct a state that is an eigenstate of the lowering operator. These states are called "coherent states". See here:

OP is talking about lowering operators for angular momentum. In the Schwinger representation, they are

##J_- = a_1^\dagger a_2##

and they don't have eigenstates.

Coherent states that appear in this context are rather spin coherent states, which were introduced by Radcliffe and were put into a proper context by Perelomov. Generally, such coherent states are not eigenstates of lowering operators.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dyn
dyn said:
Hi. I have come across the following statement - the eigenvalue equation for J+ is given by

J+ | j m > = ħ √{(j+1)-m(m+1)} | j , m+1>

That should actually be
J_+ |j m \rangle = \hbar \sqrt{j(j+1) - m (m+1)}

My question is this - how can this be an eigenvalue equaton as the ket | j, m> has changed to | j , m+1> ? Surely the raising/lowering operators don't have eigenkets as they always change the eigenket ?

The point of that equation is that it is a method for solving a different set of equations:

J^2 |j, m \rangle = j (j+1) |j, m \rangle [edited]
J_z |j, m\rangle = m |j, m \rangle

Usually, the way it goes is that the extreme case where m = -j is easy to solve. Then you can use the equation

J_+ |j m \rangle = \hbar \sqrt{j(j+1) - m (m+1)}

repeatedly to find the other cases. For example, for pure orbital angular momentum of one particle (no spin), the state |j -j \rangle is the wave function \psi(\theta, \phi) = e^{-i j \phi}. Then you apply the operator J_+ to find the solution to the equations

J^2 |j -(j-1)\rangle = j(j+1) |j -(j-1)\rangle
J_z |j -(j-1)\rangle = -(j-1) |j -(j-1)\rangle
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
The first eigenvalue equation should of course be
$$J^2 |j, m \rangle = j (j+1) |j, m \rangle.$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: stevendaryl
Thanks for all replies
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K