Confused about angular momentum

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties and dimensionality of angular momentum matrices, specifically in the context of the angular momentum quantum number l=2. Participants explore the representation of angular momentum as matrices, the addition of angular momentum operators, and the nature of eigenvectors associated with these operators.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the L2 and Lz matrices for the l=2 case are both 5x5 matrices and lists specific eigenvectors.
  • Another participant suggests that the addition of angular momentum should be expressed using the Kronecker product, indicating that the resulting matrices will have a dimensionality of (2l+1)(2s+1) x (2l+1)(2s+1).
  • A participant expresses confusion about how to derive the dimensionality of the resulting matrices, noting that the L and S matrices typically have different sizes.
  • It is mentioned that the basis vectors |l,m⟩ and |s_z⟩ exist in different spaces, and that a composite basis vector can be constructed using the direct product of these spaces.
  • Some participants confirm that the eigenvectors listed are indeed eigenfunctions of Lz and L2, but caution that one must be careful in identifying the operator associated with a given set of eigenvectors.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the need to identify the specific operator (Lz or Lx) to which the eigenvectors correspond, depending on the diagonalization of the matrix.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the dimensionality of the matrices involved and the nature of the eigenvectors, but there is some disagreement regarding the interpretation of the eigenvectors and the operators they correspond to. The discussion remains unresolved on certain technical aspects.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the operators and their eigenvectors, as well as the dependence on the definitions of the spaces involved. The dimensionality discussion is contingent on the values of l and s, which may not have been fully clarified.

dyn
Messages
774
Reaction score
63
Hi. For the angular momentum l=2 case are the L2 and Lz matrices both 5 x 5 matrices with the following eigenvectors ?
## \begin{pmatrix} 1\\0\\0\\0\\0 \end{pmatrix} ## , ## \begin{pmatrix} 0\\1\\0\\0\\0 \end{pmatrix} ## , ## \begin{pmatrix} 0\\0\\1\\0\\0 \end{pmatrix}##,## \begin{pmatrix} 0\\0\\0\\1\\0 \end{pmatrix} ##,## \begin{pmatrix} 0\\0\\0\\0\\1 \end{pmatrix} ##

I am definitely confused about the addition of angular momentum using J = L + S. These are vectors but represented by square matrices ? And also the L and S matrices are usually not even of the same size so how can they be added ? Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dyn said:
These are vectors but represented by square matrices ? And also the L and S matrices are usually not even of the same size so how can they be added ?
The more proper way of writing that sum is ##\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{L}\otimes I + I \otimes \mathbf{S}## where ##I## in the first and second term correspond to the identity matrix in the spin space and orbital angular momentum space, respectively. ##\otimes## denotes kronecker/direct product. The resulting matrices in both terms in that sum will have ##(2l+1)(2s+1) \times (2l+1)(2s+1)## dimension, which determines the dimensionality of the ##J## space.
 
Last edited:
How do you get to that dimensionality ? I would have thought the 1st term has the dimensionality of the L matrix and the 2nd term the dimensionality of the S matrix which are usually different.
Ps am I right about the l=2 case ?
 
The basis vector ##|l,m \rangle## and ##|s_z \rangle## live in different space, as you have mentioned, therefore if you want to construct a system in which both spaces interact, the new composite basis vector would be given by the direct product from the two constituent spaces, that is ##|l,m \rangle \otimes |s_z\rangle ## and the linear transformations that act on this new space is also constructed by the direct product.

dyn said:
Ps am I right about the l=2 case ?
If you are only working within the l=2 subspace, yes ##L^2## and ##L_z## are 5x5.

dyn said:
with the following eigenvectors ?
## \begin{pmatrix} 1\\0\\0\\0\\0 \end{pmatrix} ## , ## \begin{pmatrix} 0\\1\\0\\0\\0 \end{pmatrix} ## , ## \begin{pmatrix} 0\\0\\1\\0\\0 \end{pmatrix}##,## \begin{pmatrix} 0\\0\\0\\1\\0 \end{pmatrix} ##,## \begin{pmatrix} 0\\0\\0\\0\\1 \end{pmatrix} ##

Eigenvectors of which operator? If for example you have your ##L_z## diagonal, then they are the eigenvectors of ##L_z##, if it's ##L_x## which is diagonal then they are the eigenvectors of ##L_x##. But the general convention is indeed that, we use the eigenvectors of ##L_z## (and ##L^2##) to span the subspace of a given ##l##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dyn
Yes these are eigenfunctions of Lz and of L^2.
 
my2cts said:
Yes these are eigenfunctions of Lz and of L^2.
Not so quick for taking a conclusion. You have to be careful if you are only given a set of eigenvectors in matrix form such as those above. To know which operator (in matrix form), a given set of standard basis vectors (vectors with one element being unity while the rest are zeros such as those above) are eigenvectors of, one has to find one or more matrices which are diagonal. It will be of different issue if you are given already in ket form, namely ##|l,m \rangle##'s, they are certainly the eigenvectors of ##L_z## and ##L^2## because our convention has reserved the number ##m##'s to be the eigenvalues of ##L_z##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K