Calculating SO(3) Generators and [J_k, r^2]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kara386
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Generators
Kara386
Messages
204
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Using the commutation relations ##[x,p_x] = i\hbar## etc, together with the ##SO(3)## generators ##J_k (k=x,y,z)## in their operator form to calculate ##[J_x, \mathbf{r}]## and ##[J_x, \mathbf{p}]## where ##r = (x, y, z)## and ##p = (p_x, p_y, p_z)##.

Then show that ##[J_k, r^2]=0##.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I can't find the operator forms anywhere. I have looked on the internet and in textbooks, but nowhere does it specifically state that a particular form is the 'operator' form. Is it just these matrices:
##
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0& 0 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 1 \\
0& -1 & 0 \end{array} \right) ##
##
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0& 0 & -1 \\
0& 0 & 0 \\
1& & 0 \end{array} \right) ##
##
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0& 1 & 0 \\
-1& 0 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) ##
Even if that's the case how could I show ##[J_k, r^2]=0##? ##J_k## could be anyone of the three. Do I have to show it for all of them?
Any help is much appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What textbook or lecture notes are you using? (I'd have thought the operator form of the ##J_k## would have been provided.)
I'm guessing you're meant to use the angular momentum generators ##{\mathbf J} = {\mathbf r}\times{\mathbf p}##. In component form, this is ##J_i = \epsilon_{ijk} r_j p_k## (using implicit summation over repeated indices).
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top