How Do You Solve the Hamiltonian for a Two-Electron Ferromagnet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vputz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spin Stupid
vputz
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Okay, this would be easy if it hadn't been 15 years since undergrad quantum. Here goes.

I'm finding the energy spectrum of a Heisenberg "two-electron ferromagnet", if you will, with a Hamiltonian described by

H=-J\hat{S_1}\cdot\hat{S_2}-h(\hat{S_{z1}}+\hat{S_{z2}})

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution




Well, after a while of dusting off my brain and groveling to fellow students, I figured out that

(\hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2})^2 = \hat{S_1}^2 + \hat{S_2}^2 + 2\hat{S_1}\cdot\hat{S_2} \rightarrow \hat{S_1}\cdot\hat{S_2} = \frac{1}{2}( (\hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2})^2 -\hat{S_1}^2 -\hat{S_2}^2 )

So my Hamiltonian is now

H = -\frac{1}{2}J((\hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2})^2 - \hat{S_1}^2 -\hat{S_2}^2 ) - h(\hat{S_{z1}}+\hat{S_{z2}})

Okay. Now, the eigenvalues of \hat{S}^2 are s(s+1) (we're doing the usual \hbar=1 trick). And the eigenvalues of \hat{S_z} are m. And I know that electrons have s=\frac{1}{2} and m=-s...s in integer steps.

So... it should just be a matter of plugging in possible values for, er, s&m, so to speak. But the (\hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2})^2 term confuses me. My gut feeling is to treat that as an \hat{S}^2 term but use values -1,0,1 as possible values of \hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2}. Is that the right way to handle it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
vputz said:

Homework Statement



Okay, this would be easy if it hadn't been 15 years since undergrad quantum. Here goes.

I'm finding the energy spectrum of a Heisenberg "two-electron ferromagnet", if you will, with a Hamiltonian described by

H=-J\hat{S_1}\cdot\hat{S_2}-h(\hat{S_{z1}}+\hat{S_{z2}})

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution




Well, after a while of dusting off my brain and groveling to fellow students, I figured out that

(\hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2})^2 = \hat{S_1}^2 + \hat{S_2}^2 + 2\hat{S_1}\cdot\hat{S_2} \rightarrow \hat{S_1}\cdot\hat{S_2} = \frac{1}{2}( (\hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2})^2 -\hat{S_1}^2 -\hat{S_2}^2 )

So my Hamiltonian is now

H = -\frac{1}{2}J((\hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2})^2 - \hat{S_1}^2 -\hat{S_2}^2 ) - h(\hat{S_{z1}}+\hat{S_{z2}})

Okay. Now, the eigenvalues of \hat{S}^2 are s(s+1) (we're doing the usual \hbar=1 trick). And the eigenvalues of \hat{S_z} are m. And I know that electrons have s=\frac{1}{2} and m=-s...s in integer steps.

So... it should just be a matter of plugging in possible values for, er, s&m, so to speak. But the (\hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2})^2 term confuses me. My gut feeling is to treat that as an \hat{S}^2 term but use values -1,0,1 as possible values of \hat{S_1}+\hat{S_2}. Is that the right way to handle it?

yes, that's roughly right.

Your H may be written as -J/2 ( S_{tot}^2 - S_1^2 - S_2^2 -h S_{tot,z})
This is diagonal if you use for basis the three spin 1 states. Applying S_{tot}^2will give 1 \times (1+1) \hbar^2 = 2 \hbar^2 for any of the spin 1 states. Applying S_1^2 or S_2^2 will give 1/2(1/2+1) hbar^2 = 3/4 \hbar^2. The only term that will distinguish between the three S=1 states is the S_{tot,z} operator that gives m_{tot} \hbar.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top