What Are the Possible Total Spins for a Three-Particle Spin-1/2 System?

  • Thread starter Thread starter broegger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spin Systems
broegger
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have to find out the possible total spins for a three-particle system composed of spin-1/2-particles. My guess is that there are two possible spins; 1/2 (one up, the others down or vice versa) and 3/2 (all up or all down), but I'm not sure.

In my book they show how to find the total spin of a system composed of two spin-1/2-particles, but I don't understand the derivation. He talks about triplets and singlets (what is that!?) and apparently the state,

\tfrac1{\sqrt{2}}(|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle + |\downarrow\uparrow\rangle,​

represents a system of total spin 1. How come? I don't get it.

Also, another question: Is the total spin of a spin-1/2 particle s = 1/2 or is it slightly bigger (like for orbital angular momentum, where the total is always bigger than the z-component). I would think that it is, since if it is 1/2 you would know the direction of the spin vector completely (Sx = 0, Sy = 0, Sz = +/-1/2), which would violate the uncertainty principle.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What did u make of Clebsch-Gordan theorem and the C-G coefficients...?

There's one way to do it.Use the 2 1/2 spins case & compose it with a spin 1/2 case.Instead of 4,u'll have 8 states...

Daniel.
 
Huh? We aren't suppose to use the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients (we skipped that part).
 
Composing spins (and angular momenta in general) is done starting with the theorem of Clebsch-Gordan...Read it and compute

\mathcal{E}_{\frac{1}{2}}\otimes \mathcal{E}_{\frac{1}{2}}\otimes \mathcal{E}_{\frac{1}{2}}



Daniel.
 
Can anyone give a more intuitive explanation? Am I right in my initial guess?

And what about my last question?

dextercioby said:
Composing spins (and angular momenta in general) is done starting with the theorem of Clebsch-Gordan...Read it and compute

\mathcal{E}_{\frac{1}{2}}\otimes \mathcal{E}_{\frac{1}{2}}\otimes \mathcal{E}_{\frac{1}{2}}

I'm not familiar with that notation or the Clebsch-Gordan theorem. We're not supposed to use that (trust me).
 
There are 3 irreducible representations (3 irreducible spaces) spanned by the vectors given by the C-G theorem...

Daniel.
 
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