Eigenvalues of J_2 + K_1; -J_1 + K_2

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wandering.the.cosmos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eigenvalues
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the eigenvalues of the operators A = J_2 + K_1 and B = -J_1 + K_2, as described by Weinberg in his Quantum Field Theory (QFT) text. It is established that non-zero eigenvalues of these operators lead to a continuum of eigenvalues due to spatial rotations that preserve the standard vector. The participants express dissatisfaction with the reliance on experimental evidence to conclude that A and B must equal zero, highlighting a desire for a theoretical justification independent of experimental observations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and operator theory
  • Familiarity with the concepts of eigenvalues and eigenvectors
  • Knowledge of quantum field theory, particularly Weinberg's framework
  • Basic grasp of spatial rotations and their implications in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of non-zero eigenvalues in quantum mechanics
  • Explore Weinberg's Quantum Field Theory, Volume 1 for deeper insights
  • Investigate the role of continuous degrees of freedom in massless particles
  • Study theoretical arguments for eigenvalue constraints in quantum operators
USEFUL FOR

Theoretical physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the implications of eigenvalues in quantum field theory.

wandering.the.cosmos
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Weinberg in volume 1 of his QFT text says we do not observe any non-zero eigenvalues of A = J_2 + K_1; B = -J_1 + K_2. He says the "problem" is that any nonzero eigenvalue leads to a continuum of eigenvalues, generated by performing a spatial rotation about the axis that leaves the standard vector invariant.

What are the observable consequences of non-zero eigenvalues of A and B?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Very interesting question to which I unfortunately do not know an answer. But I agree that it is very unsatisfying to argue along the usual lines that no continuous degree of freedom is observed experimentally for massless paricles and then concluding that therefore A and B have to be 0. It would be much more satisfying if we could get this result out of theoretical physics without referring to experiment but unfortunately I have not heard of any such argument, so if anybody knows one I would be delighted to hear about it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
967
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K