How can particles undergo EM interactions *and* have definite strong isospin?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between electromagnetic interactions and the definition of strong isospin in particles, specifically focusing on protons. Participants explore the implications of the Hamiltonian governing particle interactions and the apparent contradiction in defining isospin while considering electromagnetic effects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how a proton can have definite strong isospin (Iz=1/2) while also undergoing electromagnetic interactions, given that the electromagnetic Hamiltonian does not commute with isospin.
  • Another participant clarifies that the charge operator Q, which combines isospin and hypercharge, commutes with Q, suggesting a relationship between charge and isospin that may resolve some concerns.
  • A later reply questions the initial assumptions about isospin definitions, arguing that the intrinsic property of being an Iz=1/2 particle seems counterintuitive if it is not well-defined during the proton's evolution under its full Hamiltonian.
  • One participant corrects a previous statement, acknowledging that while the strong Hamiltonian commutes with isospin, the electromagnetic part does not, which adds complexity to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are competing views on the implications of isospin definitions and the role of the electromagnetic Hamiltonian in particle evolution.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding how isospin is defined in the context of electromagnetic interactions, as well as the dependence on the definitions of operators involved.

depeche1
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am deeply confused about the following and I'd really appreciate it if anyone could help! Consider a charged hadron such as a proton. Amongst the state-independent properties that define a proton are strong isospin Iz=1/2 and charge Q=e. Now, the total Hamiltonian for a proton is

Hs +Hem +Hw,

where these denote the strong, electromagnetic and weak interaction Hamiltonians respectively. And in the rest frame of the proton p, which has mass m, we have

Hs +Hem +Hw|p> = m|p>

where |p> is the wavefunction of the proton. Since Iz=1/2 and charge Q=e are two of the state-independent properties that define the proton, presumably this means that

Hs +Hem +Hw|Iz=1/2, Q=e> = m|Iz=1/2, Q=e>

- otherwise it wouldn't be the eigenvalue equation for a proton wavefunction. But the electromagnetic Hamiltonian Hem does not commute with Iz; so how can the proton be evolving in accordance with the above Hamiltonian *and* have definite isospin?!

Any help really appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The charge operator Q = Iz + Y/2, where Y is the hypercharge. For protons and neutrons, Y = 1. The electromagnetic Hamiltonian does not commute with Iz by itself, or Y by itself, but it does commute with the combination Q.

It also commutes with I. Protons and neutrons form an isospin doublet with I = 1/2.
 
Bill_K said:
The charge operator Q = Iz + Y/2, where Y is the hypercharge. For protons and neutrons, Y = 1. The electromagnetic Hamiltonian does not commute with Iz by itself, or Y by itself, but it does commute with the combination Q.

It also commutes with I. Protons and neutrons form an isospin doublet with I = 1/2.

That's certainly true. But as far as I can see, these observations don't resolve the original problem - namely that of why it is that, when listing the fundamental intrinsic properties of the proton, we include that it is an Iz=1/2 particle (in addition to being a *total* isospin I=1/2 particle) given that when it's evolving in accordance with its full (strong plus electroweak) Hamiltonian, the third component of isospin isn't even defined in it's own rest frame? Why *do* we regard it as an intrinsic property of the proton that it is an Iz=1/2 particle if that property isn't even well-defined along with its total energy? It seems so counter-intuitive (to me!)
 
It also commutes with I

Sorry this is *not* true! Must eat my words. The strong Hamiltonian commutes with isospin, while the electromagnetic part does not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K