Hamiltonian of a spin 1/2 particle in a constant mag. field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Hamiltonian of a spin 1/2 particle in a constant magnetic field, specifically addressing the absence of a kinetic energy term in the Hamiltonian when considering spin dynamics. Participants explore the implications of this absence and the relationship between spin and kinetic energy in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the absence of the kinetic energy term in the Hamiltonian for a magnetic dipole, suggesting that classical energy should include both kinetic and magnetic potential energy.
  • Another participant explains that while there is a kinetic energy term for a free particle in a magnetic field, it complicates the Hamiltonian, which can be expressed as a combination of kinetic and magnetic terms when necessary.
  • A participant notes that if the focus is solely on spin dynamics, the kinetic energy term can be disregarded, as it exists in a different Hilbert space, allowing for separate solutions.
  • Further clarification is sought on the rules for combining results from separate solutions of the Schrödinger equation for spin and kinetic energy terms.
  • One participant describes the process of forming a direct product space for the Hamiltonian, indicating that the system can be decomposed into non-coupled parts for individual analysis before recombining them.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and treatment of the kinetic energy term in the Hamiltonian, indicating that multiple competing views remain regarding its role in the context of spin dynamics.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of the Hamiltonian formulation when both spin and kinetic energy are considered, with participants acknowledging the need for separate treatments in certain scenarios.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
Why is there no kinetic energy term in said hamiltonian? Suppose I take a magnetic dipole in my hand, and I throw it in the field. Then surely its classical energy is E = p²/2m - \vec{\mu} \cdot \vec{B}.

Then why is the p²/2m term absent in the hamiltonian?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is a kinetic energy term if you are dealing with a free particle in a magnetic field, but that problem is slightly more complicated. The Hamiltonian is given by
\mathcal{H} = (\hat{\mathbf{p}}/ 2m - e/c \mathbf{A})^2 + \mathbf{\mu}\cdot \mathbf{B}
and so you have to solve this problem, which is a little more involved. If you're only interested in spin dynamics (for example if you're interested in dealing with a localized spin on a crystal lattice) then you don't worry about the kinetic energy term. Also, the kinetic energy term is in a different Hilbert space, so you can solve the two problems separately and combine them, if you really wanted to.
 
abszero said:
If you're only interested in spin dynamics (for example if you're interested in dealing with a localized spin on a crystal lattice) then you don't worry about the kinetic energy term. Also, the kinetic energy term is in a different Hilbert space, so you can solve the two problems separately and combine them, if you really wanted to.

You mean you can solve the Schrödinger equation for each term separately and then combine the results? I certainly didn’t know that! What are the rules for combining these results?
 
You end up with a direct product space where one part is a contribution due to the spin-coupling component of the hamiltonian, and the other is due to the kinetic energy term. So you end up with direct product eigenspaces that look like
\mathcal{H} |E_{KE} ; E_{\sigma} \rangle = (E_{KE} + E_{\sigma}) |E_{KE} ; E_{\sigma} \rangle
So it is in a way like breaking up a classical hamiltonian for multiple particles, where some of the degrees of freedom are not coupled. You can break the system up into parts and solve the individual parts, then put them back together.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K