Can the Operator n dot L Have the Same Eigenvalues as Lz in Quantum Mechanics?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the operator ##\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}## and its relationship to the eigenvalues of ##L_z## in quantum mechanics. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the claim that these operators share eigenvalues, particularly in the context of the eigenvalues of the angular momentum operators ##L_x##, ##L_y##, and ##L_z##.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the nature of eigenvalues for the operators involved, questioning how ##\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}## can have the same eigenvalues as ##L_z## despite the differences in their eigenvectors. There is a discussion about the implications of having zero eigenvalues and the conditions under which these operators can be considered to have the same set of eigenvalues.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the concepts, with some providing insights into the nature of eigenvalues and the role of basis choice in quantum mechanics. There is recognition of the need to clarify the relationship between the operators and their eigenstates, indicating a productive exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions regarding the operators and their eigenvalues, particularly in relation to the choice of the direction of ##\hat n## and its implications for the eigenstates of the operators involved.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
285

Homework Statement


I've been told that the operator ##\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}## has the same eigenvalues as ##L_z##. Later I've been told that it has the same eigenvalues as any component of ##\hat {\vec L}##. But I am a bit confused, as far as I understand the eigenvalues of ##L_x##, ##L_y## and ##L_z## cannot be the same at the same time. Hmm now that I think about it, if ##L_z## has eigenvalues ##\hbar m##, then both ##L_x## and ##L_y## have no eigenvalues? This is impossible... I am missing something.
I ask this because I found a problem that more or less states that if ##|l,m>## is an eigenvector of both ##\hat L## and ##\hat L_z##, then find the coefficients ##c_i## in function of ##\theta## and ##\phi## such that ##|\psi>=c_1 |1,1>+c_0 |1,0>+c_{-1}|1,-1>## is an eigenvector of ##\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}##.

Homework Equations


##\hat A \psi =\lambda \psi##.


The Attempt at a Solution


I think I know a way how to tackle the problem. I'd write ##\hat n =\cos \phi \sin \theta \hat i + \cos \phi \cos \theta \hat j + \cos \theta \hat k##. Then write ##\hat {\vec L}=L_x \hat i + L_y \hat j + L_z \hat k##. Then write ##L_x## and ##L_y## in terms of ##L_{\pm}## because I know how they act on ##|1,m>##
With all this in mind I could write the left side of the following equation: ##(\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}) |\psi >= \lambda |\psi>##.
What I did not know is that apparently I could take ##\lambda = 0##, ##\hbar## or ##-\hbar##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No body said they have the same eigenvalues at the same time. they have the same set of eigenvalues but at anyone given time they may have different eigenvalues taken from the common set Lx and Ly always have eigenvalues which may sometimes be zero. Having a zero eigenvalue is not the same thing as having no eigenvalue. Even when Lz is m at least one of Lx and Ly must have a non-zero eigenvalue (except if the particle's spin is zero).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Ah ok I see now. Thank you.

I still don't understand why ##\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}## and ##\hat L_z## share the same eigenvalues.
It's not like ##\hat n## is arbitrary since it must satisfy that ##(\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}) |\psi >= \lambda |\psi>## and I can't just assume that ##\hat n = \hat z## for instance.
 
dauto said:
No body said they have the same eigenvalues at the same time.

Sure they do! :smile:

L_z and L_x are just operators, they have the same eigenvalues no matter what time of day it is. Indeed, they have the same set of eigenvalues as each other - to claim otherwise would be to claim that God prefers the x-direction to the z-direction, or maybe vice-versa.

Probably what you mean is that a given state vector can't be both an eigenstate of L_z and of L_x. (?)
 
fluidistic said:
Ah ok I see now. Thank you.

I still don't understand why ##\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}## and ##\hat L_z## share the same eigenvalues.
It's not like ##\hat n## is arbitrary since it must satisfy that ##(\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}) |\psi >= \lambda |\psi>## and I can't just assume that ##\hat n = \hat z## for instance.

I think your confusion lies in the fact that ##\hat n \cdot \hat {\vec L}## and ##\hat L_z## always have different eigenvectors as long as ##\hat n \neq \pm \hat z##. You need to solve for the eigenvalues/eigenvectors in the different cases, and it turns out that they do always have the same eigenvalues, even though the eigenvectors are different for a given basis. The reason this makes sense is because your choice of a basis (which direction ##\hat{z}## points in) is arbitrary; you could consider another coordinate system (and basis for spin states) where ##\hat{n} = \hat{z}## and you should get the same eigenvalues.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Take a rotation that puts the z axis of an arbitrary Cartesian basis to the unit vector \vec{n}. This is represented by a unitary tranformation in the Hilbert space of states and thus, \hat{J}_z and \vec{n} \cdot \hat{\vec{J}} has the same eigenvalues. The eigenstates of the latter operator are given by the unitary transformation of the eigenstates of the former. It's a good exercise to write this down in formulas!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K