Angular momentum uncertainty principle and the particle on a ring

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the angular momentum uncertainty principle as applied to a particle constrained to move on a ring in the xy-plane. Participants explore the implications of this confinement on the angular momentum operators and the validity of the uncertainty relations in this specific context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian and angular momentum operators for a particle on a ring, questioning the validity of the uncertainty relation when certain eigenfunctions yield zero commutation results.
  • Another participant raises the issue of the physical meaning of the operators \(L_x\) and \(L_y\) when the particle is confined to the xy-plane, suggesting that these components may not have meaningful interpretations in this scenario.
  • Some participants argue that in classical mechanics, the x and y components of angular momentum are zero for a particle rotating about the z-axis, while others contend that this is only true for the specific case of confinement to the xy-plane.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of quantum mechanics on the uncertainty relations, with some participants suggesting that the uncertainty principle may seem contradictory in this context.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the problem's confinement to two dimensions means there is effectively only one angular momentum component, \(L_z\), and that this remains true in quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant reiterates that the x and y components of angular momentum are not zero in all cases, particularly when the ring is not in the xy-plane.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the physical meaning of the angular momentum components in the context of a particle on a ring. There is no consensus on whether the uncertainty relations are valid or contradictory in this scenario, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the interpretation of angular momentum components when constrained to two dimensions, as well as the potential for confusion regarding the application of the uncertainty principle in this specific case.

physical_chemist
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
How can I think about the uncertainty principle for angular momentum components and the particle on a ring problem, since L and Lz are parallel in this case?
By considering a particle on a ring, the eigenfunctions of ##H## are also eigenfunctions of ##L_\text{z}##:

$$\psi(\phi) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{im\phi}$$

with ##m = 0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\cdots##. In polar coordinates, the corresponding operators are

$$H = -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2I}\frac{d^{2}}{d\phi^{2}}$$ $$L_\text{z} = -i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}$$

The Robertson version of uncertainty principle, valid in a statistical sense, tell us

$$\Delta L_{x}\Delta L_\text{y} \geq \frac{1}{2}\left | \int \psi^{*}[L_{x},L_{y}]\psi d\tau\right | $$ where usually ##[L_{x},L_{y}] = i\hbar L_{z}##. The operators for ##L_{x}## and ##L_{y}## are

$$L_{x} = i\hbar \left ( sin(\phi)\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta} + cot(\theta)sin(\phi)\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}\right )$$

$$L_{y} = -i\hbar \left ( cos(\phi)\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta} - cot(\theta)sin(\phi)\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}\right )$$

Since the ring plane is located on xy plane, i.e ##\theta = \pi/2##, we obtain

$$L_{x}\psi = L_{y}\psi = 0$$

This make sense, since the particle is rotating around z-axis. Then, ##[L_{x},L_{y}]\psi = 0##? Thus, in this specific case, doesn't the relation ##[L_{x},L_{y}] = i\hbar L_{z}## hold? The interpretation of uncertainty principle is valid for a complete set of eigenfunctions of two operators, but can exist some eigenfunctions of ##L_{z}## which are eigenfunctions of ##L_{x}## and ##L_{y}## (I only know the ##Y_{0}^{0}## case until now). Does it means that ##[L_{x},L_{y}] = i\hbar L_{z}## should be use with care? Why? Is it valid only when ##[L_{x},L_{y}]\psi \neq 0## ? Even expanding the ##L_{z}## eigenfunctions in spherical harmonic, I can't obtain a satisfactory answer. Angular momentum is a vector quantity. Could you help me?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If the particle is confined to a ring in the ##x y## plane, what physical meaning do the operators ##L_x## and ##L_y## have? Nothing can rotate about the ##x## or ##y## axis.
 
PeterDonis said:
If the particle is confined to a ring in the ##x y## plane, what physical meaning do the operators ##L_x## and ##L_y## have? Nothing can rotate about the ##x## or ##y## axis.
@PeterDonis, classically, when a particle is rotating about z-axis, the x,y components of angular momentum are zero, since L is a vector quantity and there is no rotation around such axes. But, in Quantum mechanics, there is an uncertainty relation which cannot allow this in principle (except when we have ##Y_{0}^{0}##). But, in the case above, the uncertainty relations seems to be in contradition, no?
 
physical_chemist said:
@PeterDonis, classically, when a particle is rotating about z-axis, the x,y components of angular momentum are zero, since L is a vector quantity and there is no rotation around such axes.
In three dimensions, yes. But you have constrained the problem by confining the particle to a ring in the ##xy## plane. That means the problem is no longer three dimensional and what you are calling "the x,y components of angular momentum" are no longer even physically meaningful, since you have made it physically impossible for anything to rotate except in the ##xy## plane. Or, to put it another way, in two spatial dimensions, which is what you've confined this problem to, there is only one angular momentum component, the one you are calling ##L_z##.

physical_chemist said:
But, in Quantum mechanics, there is an uncertainty relation which cannot allow this in principle (except when we have ##Y_{0}^{0}##). But, n the case above, the uncertainty relations seems to be in contradition, no?
No, because everything I said above about the problem being confined to two spatial dimensions is still true when we pass over from classical physics to quantum mechanics. There is still only one angular momentum component. It's now an operator instead of a number, but it's still just one operator, so the question of uncertainty relations for angular momentum operators doesn't even arise.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
physical_chemist said:
@PeterDonis, classically, when a particle is rotating about z-axis, the x,y components of angular momentum are zero, since L is a vector quantity and there is no rotation around such axes. But, in Quantum mechanics, there is an uncertainty relation which cannot allow this in principle (except when we have ##Y_{0}^{0}##). But, in the case above, the uncertainty relations seems to be in contradition, no?
Also in classical view, when a particle is rotating about z-axis, the x,y components of angular momentum are not zero. They are zero in the specific case which the ring is in the xy-plane, otherwise the angular momentum ##L## is rotating with the particle.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory
hokhani said:
Also in classical view, when a particle is rotating about z-axis, the x,y components of angular momentum are not zero. They are zero in the specific case which the ring is in the xy-plane, otherwise the angular momentum ##L## is rotating with the particle.
Classically, if the ring is not in the X-Y plane then the particle's rotation is not about the Z-axis. Assuming constant ##\left|\vec v\right|## and that the center of the ring is at the origin, ##\vec L## is constant (and perpendicular to the ring's plane).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hokhani and weirdoguy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K