Angular momentum theory problem probably wrong sign

lgnr
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I have to prove that \left\langle lm | \vec{\hat{r}} \times \vec{\hat{p}} | lm\right \rangle = \left\langle lm | \vec{\hat{p}} \times \vec{\hat{r}} | lm \right \rangle, where | lm \rangle are eigenkets of angular momentum operator \hat{L}^2

And I can't figure out a way to do this correctly. I wrote the angular momentum operator-vector in terms of its components, \hat{L_x}, \hat{L_y} and \hat{L_z}, and only the \hat{k} component survives the bra-ket operation, because I can write \vec{L_x} y \vec{L_y} in terms of ladder operators, and after lowering and rising the eigenstates, the corresponding eigenkets (except for the \hat{k} component) cancel with \langle lm | because of the orthogonality property of these eigenkets. Probably there is a wrong sign in the problem statement. Looks trivial in that case, but I want to know your opinion.

Thanks in advance for any advice.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Undoubtedly the wrong sign.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
515
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
426
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top