Why doesn't orbital angular momentum operator L commute with scalar operator S?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fayled
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutation Rules
fayled
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
So the total angular momentum operator J commutes with any scalar operator S. The argument for this is that J is the generator of 'turntable rotations' (by this I mean we rotate the whole object about an axis, along with its orientation) and the expectation value of any scalar operator has to be invariant under such a rotation. This tells us that S commutes with the rotation operator and thus its generator J.

My question is why doesn't a similar argument hold for the orbital angular momentum operator L? The difference is that L generates rotations that rotate only the object but not its orientation around an axis. However surely the expectation value of a scalar operator should still be invariant under this type of rotation, meaning L and S commute. However this is not the case, because I know that any component of L does not commute with J2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Scalar operators that involve the orientation of the object may not be invariant under the rotations generated by ##\vec L##. For example consider the angle between an electron's spin axis and its momentum. This angle is a scalar quantity (related to the scalar operator ##\vec S \cdot \vec P##) which is invariant under the full rotations generated by ##\vec J##. But it is not invariant under the rotations generated by ##\vec L##, which will rotate the momentum but not the spin. You can confirm that ##[\vec J, \vec S \cdot \vec P] = 0## while ##[\vec L, \vec S \cdot \vec P] \neq 0##.
 
  • Like
Likes Nugatory
The_Duck said:
Scalar operators that involve the orientation of the object may not be invariant under the rotations generated by ##\vec L##. For example consider the angle between an electron's spin axis and its momentum. This angle is a scalar quantity (related to the scalar operator ##\vec S \cdot \vec P##) which is invariant under the full rotations generated by ##\vec J##. But it is not invariant under the rotations generated by ##\vec L##, which will rotate the momentum but not the spin. You can confirm that ##[\vec J, \vec S \cdot \vec P] = 0## while ##[\vec L, \vec S \cdot \vec P] \neq 0##.

Beautiful, thanks!
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top