Commutation between operators of different Hilbert spaces

Click For Summary
In a multi-electron atom, the spin operator S and the orbital angular momentum operator L can be analyzed despite acting on different Hilbert spaces by utilizing the tensor product of these spaces. The commutator of L and S can be calculated using the tensor product representation, leading to the expression [L ⊗ I_spin, I_spatial ⊗ S] = [L, I_spatial] ⊗ [I_spin, S]. This approach shows that both operators can be treated within a unified framework of vector-valued functions on R^3. The differential operators for angular momentum act componentwise, while spin operators act on function components through matrices. Ultimately, this confirms that L and S commute, allowing for meaningful calculations in quantum mechanics.
Wminus
Messages
173
Reaction score
29
Hi!

If I have understood things correctly, in a multi-electron atom you have that the spin operator ##S## commutes with the orbital angular momentum operator ##L##. However, as these operators act on wavefunctions living in different Hilbert spaces, how is it possible to even calculate the commutator?

I mean, you can't calculate the commutator between ##\hat{H} = i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}## and ##\hat{p}= \frac{\hbar}{i} \vec{\nabla}## precisely because of different hiblert spaces, so why is ##L## and ##S## different?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wminus said:
I mean, you can't calculate the commutator between ##\hat{H} = i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} and ##\hat{p}= \frac{\hbar}{i} \vec{\nabla}## precisely because of different hiblert spaces
At first note that usually ##\hat H## is used for the Hamiltonian which isn't identical with the temporal derivative operator.
Anyway, what you say here is wrong You surely can calculate that commutator and its really straight-forward. You just should consider the position-space wave-function together with its temporal dependence and calculate ## [ i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t},\frac{\hbar}{i} \vec{\nabla}]\Psi(\vec x,t)##. Also there is only one Hilbert space here, the space of square-integrable complex valued functions.

And about the commutator of spin and orbital angular momentum operators. Here there are two Hilbert spaces and the abstract quantum state of the system is a member of the tensor product of these two Hilbert spaces, so we have ## |\Psi\rangle=\sum_{nm} c_{nm}|\Phi_n\rangle\otimes |\Sigma_m\rangle## where ## \{|\Phi_n\rangle\}## is a basis for the spatial Hilbert space and ## \{|\Sigma_m\rangle\}## is a basis for the spin Hilbert space. The operators are tensor products of operators acting on each Hilbert space too. So instead of ## \hat L ## or ## \hat S##, we should have ## \hat L \otimes \hat I_{spin} ## and ## \hat I_{spatial} \otimes \hat S##.
Now we can calculate the commutator: ## [\hat L \otimes \hat I_{spin},\hat I_{spatial} \otimes \hat S]=[\hat L,\hat I_{spatial}]\otimes [\hat I_{spin},\hat S]##.
 
  • Like
Likes Wminus
What @Shyan says is correct. But I think that, for practical calculations, the following point of view is more convenient.

The tensor product Hilbert space ##L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}## of the two spaces ##L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})## and ##\mathbb{C}^{2}## is isomorphic to the Hilbert space ##L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3},\mathbb{C}^{2})##, which is the space of square integrable vector-valued (over ##\mathbb{C}^{2}##; in the integral expression of the inner product, one uses the natural inner product on ##\mathbb{C}^{2}## rather than the complex modulus of ##\mathbb{C}##) functions on ##\mathbb{R}^{3}##.

In this way, both the orbital angular momentum and the spin operators act always on these vector-valued functions on ##\mathbb{R}^{3}##. But the angular momentum operators are given by the usual differential operators and act componentwise, while the spin operators are given by the usual matrices and act on the components of the functions (and thus mixing them), i.e.,

$$
S\left(\begin{array}{c}
A\\
B
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & b\\
c & d
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
A\\
B
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
aA+bB\\
cA+dB
\end{array}\right)$$ and $$
L\left(\begin{array}{c}
A\\
B
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
LA\\
LB
\end{array}\right)$$

You can easily check that the two operators commute.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...