How to Prove d<L>/dt = <N> for a Particle in Potential V(r)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tuneman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantum
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that for a particle in a potential V(r), the rate of change of the expectation value of the orbital angular momentum L is equal to the expectation value of the torque, expressed as d/dt = , where N = r x (-grad V). Participants are exploring concepts related to quantum mechanics, particularly Ehrenfest's theorem and the properties of angular momentum operators.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to manipulate Ehrenfest's theorem and the equations of motion for operators. There are discussions about the time derivative of expectation values and the use of commutators. Some participants express uncertainty about how to apply certain operator identities and whether to break down components of the angular momentum operator.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing insights and attempting to clarify their understanding of the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of operator identities and commutation relations, but there is no explicit consensus on the path forward. Multiple interpretations and approaches are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention constraints such as the lack of instruction from their professor and difficulties with the textbook's explanations. There is also a reference to a part (b) of the problem that involves showing that d/dt = 0 for any spherically symmetric potential, which some participants have not yet addressed.

  • #31
ya that is the x component, of r \ X\ (-\nabla V) and then I can simply argue if a add the three components, L_x, L_y, L_z knowing r = x,y,z, I can say \frac{dL}{dt} = r \X\ (- \nabla V)

Wow...that makes total sense... Ty very much for helping me solve the problem, I really appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Yep, since similar results hold for L_y and L_z. You can just permutate the indices cyclicly (is that a word?)

\vec L is just a operator with 3 components: \vec L=L_x \vec i+L_y\vec j +L_z \vec k, so you can just equate the components of both sides.
 
  • #33
awesome, thanks for the help!

and to show that to show that for a sphyrically symmetric potential \frac{d&lt;L&gt;}{dt} = 0, someone mentioned to me to try this

\frac{d&lt;L&gt;}{dt} = [H,L] + \frac{dh}{dt}

where the right term on the right hand side equals zero because the hamiltonian isn't time dependent, and then I guess I am left off where i started in the previous problem. Should I be thinking of this equation, or should I be trying a different approach.
 
  • #34
The equation you derived is general, ofcourse.

\frac{d}{dt}\langle \vec L \rangle = \langle \vec r \times (-\vec \nabla V) \rangle

So try to evaluate the right hand side for the case where V=V(r), r=|\vec r|.

Hint: Use \vec \nabla in spherical coordinates.
 
  • #35
Ah I see!
r \times -\nabla V = r(r \times r)(\frac{-dV}{dr})+ r(r\times \theta)\frac{1}{r}(\frac{-dV}{d\theta})+r(r\times\phi)\frac{1}{rsin\theta}(\frac{-dV}{d\theta})
Where the things getting cross multiplied are the unit vecotrs (i don't know how to put the hats on them) and of course those are partial deriviatives.
The first term has r x r, which is of course 0, and the other two terms have me differentiating V(r) with respect to the two angular coords, so of course they are 0! so the whole thing equals zero!
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Yep. The quick way of seeing this intuitively is by recalling that \vec \nabla V is the vector which, at eacht point, points in the direction of maximum increase of V. If V is spherically symmetric, what other direction can this be but radially outward? In the tangential direction it must be zero.
So \vec \nabla V(r) points in the direction of \vec r everywhere, so its cross product with \vec r is zero everywhere.
 
  • #37
Actually, you could have used the equation is suggested. The commutator [H,L] is zero, and <dl/dt> is obviously zero. Its a nifty little formula, and its very useful.

- harsh
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
46
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
5K