Is angular momentum something that is characteristic for a particle?

Oww2
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I've got some questions about angular momentum. I hope they aren't too stupid, but I can't see the wood for the trees.

Is angular momentum something that is characteristic for a particle? I know that spin is characteristic (for example, the spin of a pi- is always 0) if I'm correct, but is the spin of the combination pi+pi- always 0?

And if I want to know the angular momentum of the combination of particles 123, can I group them the way I want? If I know the angular momentum of the combination 12, can I group those two particles and determine the angular momentum of (12)3? Is that the same as the angular momentum of 1(23)?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
>Is angular momentum something that is characteristic for a particle?
Certainly not. First of all, just as in classical physics, a.m. is always defined relative to a point in space. r cross p depends on what the origin of r is! And the angular momentum of a particle about this point can certainly change as time goes on, just as it does in classical physics. (Example: An electron is in orbit around a nucleus, then is excited to become a free particle) All the conservation laws from classical physics apply also in quantum physics, just remember that angular momentum is quantized.

>I know that spin is characteristic (for example, the spin of a pi- is always 0) if I'm correct, but is the spin of the combination pi+pi- always 0?
No, for example they could be spinning around their common center of mass.

>And if I want to know the angular momentum of the combination of particles 123, can I group them the way I want? If I know the angular momentum of the combination 12, can I group those two particles and determine the angular momentum of (12)3? Is that the same as the angular momentum of 1(23)?
Yes. The total angular momentum of a system is uniquely defined and does not depend on how you calculate it.
 
Thanks! :)

I forgot to ask something:

There is always conservation of total angular momentum, but spin doesn't have to be conserved, is that correct? And if there's a reaction: a + b -> c + d, and I want to check if the reaction is possible, one of the things I have to do is determine the total angular momentum of a + b and c + d and see if it's the same? If the spatial angular momentum is 0 at both sides of the reaction, then you just have to add the spins of a + b and c + d and see if they overlap (for example: spin of a + b = 0,1, spin of c + d = 0, then the reaction is possible because the spins both can be 0?)? But how do you add them when the spatial angular momentum isn't 0?

I know this are a lot of questions, I'd be very thankful if someone answered them :)
 
Of course, you'll have all these questions answered when you enter an undergraduate course on quantum mechanics. Including lots of problem solving, that's the proper way to learn this!
But OK, here goes. :)

The answer to your question is that spin and orbital angular momentum are treated on an equal footing when adding angular momenta. For the observables and operators,
J = S + L
(S is spin, L is orbital a.m., and J is total a.m.)
and for the quantum numbers you thus may obtain one of the cases
|s-l| <= j <= s+l
 
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...
Back
Top