Having a hard time thinking about quantum mechanical vector addition.

Silversonic
Messages
121
Reaction score
1
If a neutron in a nucleus is in a 1p state, before splitting this up into separate j-state (due to spin-orbit effect) this neutron has 6 possible states.

l = 1
m_l = 1, 0 or -1
m_s = 1/2 or -1/2Splitting this into j-states corresponding to l+s and l-s, as expected there are 6 states.

j = 3/2 (l+s)
m_j = 3/2, 1/2, -1/2, -3/2

j = 1/2 (l-s)
m_j = 1/2, -1/2.I've tried to think of this result classically. How exactly the j-vector is made of the l and s vectors. For a particular j and mj, we have on a vector diagram that the j-vector can revolve in a circle around that particular m_j value. For any particular direction of this j-vector, the l and s vectors add vectorially and can lie anywhere on a circle that precesses around the j-vector.

But exactly what m_l, m_s state corresponds to which j/m_j state?

For j = 3/2, m_j = 3/2, the only state that could correspond to this is m_l = 1, m_s = 1/2. Similarly for j = 3/2, m_j = -3/2, we have m_l = -1, m_s = -1/2.

But what about the other four states? I've tried for a few hours now to figure out how you can deduce this. For j =1/2, m_j = 1/2, there are two possible states which give the correct z-component and, I believe, the correct magnitude (l = 1, m_s = -1/2, or l = 0, m_s = 1/2). So how is it possible to know which of these two it is? Similarly for j = 3/2, m_j = 1/2, there are two possible states which give the correct z-component and, I believe again, the correct magnitude (l = 1, m_s = -1/2, or l = 0, m_s = 1/2). The same two possible states for both j = 3/2, j = 1/2. So I need to know which of l = 1, m_s = -1/2, or l = 0, m_s = 1/2 corresponds to j = 3/2, or j = 1/2. How is it possible to know?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I've tried to think of this result classically.
Big mistake. The idea that angular momenta are little vectors that precess about one another went out in the 1930's. It seems like an appealing idea, but it's wrong. The sooner you let go of this crutch and admit to yourself that the problem is quantum mechanical, not classical, the sooner you'll start to understand what's going on. :smile:
For j =1/2, m_j = 1/2, there are two possible states which give the correct z-component and, I believe, the correct magnitude (l = 1, m_s = -1/2, or l = 0, m_s = 1/2). So how is it possible to know which of these two it is?
It's neither. It's a quantum mechanical linear combination of the two. To figure it out, you must use stepping operators. Start with the uniquely defined state, j=3/2, m = 3/2. Apply the lowering operator j- = l- + s- to it. The result will be, by definition, the next lowest state, j=3/2, m = 1/2. It will be a superposition of ℓz=1, sz = -1/2 and ℓz=0, sz = +1/2. The coefficients in front of these two states are called Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. The other state, j=1/2, m = 1/2, can now be found as the linear combination which is orthogonal to the one you just found.
 
Silversonic said:
For j = 3/2, m_j = 3/2, the only state that could correspond to this is m_l = 1, m_s = 1/2. Similarly for j = 3/2, m_j = -3/2, we have m_l = -1, m_s = -1/2.

Good, this are the highest (lowest) weight states. Now construct operators which reduce m_j by one unit and operate on the highest weight state.
 
Bill_K said:
Big mistake. The idea that angular momenta are little vectors that precess about one another went out in the 1930's. It seems like an appealing idea, but it's wrong. The sooner you let go of this crutch and admit to yourself that the problem is quantum mechanical, not classical, the sooner you'll start to understand what's going on. :smile:

It's neither. It's a quantum mechanical linear combination of the two. To figure it out, you must use stepping operators. Start with the uniquely defined state, j=3/2, m = 3/2. Apply the lowering operator j- = l- + s- to it. The result will be, by definition, the next lowest state, j=3/2, m = 1/2. It will be a superposition of ℓz=1, sz = -1/2 and ℓz=0, sz = +1/2. The coefficients in front of these two states are called Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. The other state, j=1/2, m = 1/2, can now be found as the linear combination which is orthogonal to the one you just found.

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. I have actually done stepping operators in a different module, I just hadn't thought. I have been thinking classically as I'm supposed to convince myself that the coupling of J-angular momenta of an odd proton and neutron in a nucleus in the highest outer orbitals tends to favour parallel intrinsic spin. It suggests to think of how their j-vectors couple in each case, then break these j-vectors into their l and s components and examine the alignment of their intrinsic spins. It does state that this is very approximate and quantum mechanically wrong way to think about it, though.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
417
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top