# How exactly do raising/lowering operators let you know the form of M?

• Silversonic
In summary, the conversation discusses the existence of states with same L quantum number but with different M values. These states are created through the use of lowering and raising operators, but there is a limit to the values that M can take on based on the maximum value of L. While it is mathematically consistent to have both integer and half-integer values for M, it is impossible for L to have both types of values. The conversation also explores the idea of other hypothetical operators that could act on eigenstates, but concludes that such operators would not create new states and would not change the established relationship between L and
Silversonic
There must be some lapse in my understanding of this. I understand that you can have an eigenstate of a system with an angular momentum magnitude value and a value for one component of the angular momentum (z). Using the lowering and raising operators we can create states (or deduce that states exist) with the same angular momentum magnitude value and the value for one component of the angular momentum increased or decreased by one unit.

We can keep doing this until the value for the component reaches a maximum or minimum value that is within the bounds of its square not exceeding the square of the magnitude of the whole angular momentum.

So we have deduced that there definitely exist states with same L quantum number, but with M values that run from L to -L in steps of one. Using this fact we can deduce L is either a positive half-integer or integer.

But how does this let us know that states can ONLY have an M-value that runs in steps of one from L to -L? We only deduced that states with M from L to -L in steps of one exist, but the M values might not be exclusive to those. What if we created some other mythical operator that could act on an eigenstate which created another eigenstate with the same L value, but M increased by a half?

For orbital angular momentum the argument is clear. In order for a full rotation to a return a system to itself, the M value (and therefore L) must be limited to integer values. Hence it runs from L to -L in integer steps and in this case, those are the only M-value states that can exist.

However L values that are half-integers are mathematically consistent, this is spin and full rotation bringing the same state isn't a necessity. So we know M, in this case, can have values from L to -L in steps of one, but there is nothing telling us that M is exclusive to those values?

Last edited:
So we have deduced that there definitely exist states with same L quantum number, but with M values that run from L to -L in steps of one.
This shows that if M is integer, then L is integer. And if M is half-integer, then L is half-integer. Can't have it both ways.
What if we created some other mythical operator that could act on an eigenstate which created another eigenstate with the same L value, but M increased by a half?
And this would require L to be both integer and half-integer, hence impossible.

Bill_K said:
This shows that if M is integer, then L is integer. And if M is half-integer, then L is half-integer. Can't have it both ways.

And this would require L to be both integer and half-integer, hence impossible.

Ah okay. So the problem occurs when examining the limits of high/low M which determine L. Right?If half-integer and integer values of M were possible (although it's not exclusive to these combinations). Taking a look at maximum M, it's either integer or half-integer. The stepping up operator shows this maximum value is equal to L, making L integer or half-integer respectively. But if there were a stepping down operator which reduces M by a half, we'd have a state with M-1/2. Using the stepping up operator (which increases M by one unit) on this state, we'd see that the eigenstate created from this would have an M value equal to M+1/2, but this can't be true since M was the maximum value. Hence this state doesn't exist. But this also shows that both M - 1/2 and M have value equal to L. Which is impossible.

Bill_K said:
Silversonic said:
So we have deduced that there definitely exist states with same L quantum number, but with M values that run from L to -L in steps of one.
This shows that if M is integer, then L is integer. And if M is half-integer, then L is half-integer. Can't have it both ways.

Bill, this step in your argument seems a bit dodgy. This shows that if M is integer, then L is integer (and likewise for half integer) for the M's we already found. If there were more states, there's no reason to assume these other hypothetical eigenstates, |L,M'>, of LZ would need to satisfy this same property. I think all you've shown is that for the usual |L,M> states we already know about that it's impossible to have two states such that M is integer for one and half integer for the other. I see no reason why you can assume a priori that Silversonic's hypothetical extra states with eigenvalues M' would also need to satisfy M' = -L,...,L in integer steps.

Because, given one such additional state, we can now operate on it with the original stepping operators. As a result we will have two complete sets of states, with different L values.
What if we created some other mythical operator that could act on an eigenstate which created another eigenstate with the same L value, but M increased by a half?
What would this operator be? Not angular momentum, which has just the original three generators. We would be building a representation of a larger group, as for example the states of the hydrogen atom form representations of a larger group O(4). (Although there only integer L values are involved.) The states participating in a representation of this group would be direct sums of angular momentum representations.

Suppose such hypothetical states of general real z-component of spin (say, m=1/4) existed. You could still act on these states with the raising and lowering operators to increase or decrease m by one; this follows from the commutation relations of the operators. By acting on such a state repeatedly you'd end up with a state of m=j+1/4, which would contradict the requirement that m is less than or equal to j. So if such such states existed in the interval (j-1,j), you'd need them to be annihilated by the raising operator. But then that wouldn't be consistent with the equation $J_{\pm}J_{\mp}=\mathbf{J}^2 -J_{z}^2 \pm \hbar J_z$.

## How do raising/lowering operators work?

Raising and lowering operators are mathematical operators that are used in quantum mechanics to shift the energy levels of a system. They work by changing the quantum numbers associated with a specific state, which in turn affects the energy of that state.

## What is the significance of raising/lowering operators in quantum mechanics?

Raising and lowering operators are important in quantum mechanics because they allow us to understand the energy levels and states of a system. By using these operators, we can manipulate the quantum numbers and energy levels of a system, which is crucial in understanding the behavior of particles.

## How do raising/lowering operators help determine the form of M?

Raising and lowering operators are used in the mathematical representation of a quantum system, known as the wave function. By applying these operators to the wave function, we can determine the possible energy levels and states of the system, which ultimately helps us understand the form of M.

## Can raising/lowering operators be used for any type of system?

Yes, raising and lowering operators are applicable to any quantum system, regardless of its complexity. These operators are a fundamental part of quantum mechanics and are used in a wide range of fields, including chemistry, physics, and engineering.

## Are raising/lowering operators always used together?

No, raising and lowering operators are not always used together. In some cases, only one of these operators may be necessary to determine the form of M. It depends on the specific system and the information you are trying to obtain from it.

• Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
595
• Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
0
Views
224
• Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
18
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
335
Views
9K