I Multiple questions about eigenstates and eigenvalues

Sebas4
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
Solving time-independent Schrödinger equation and find eigenvalues for observable angular momentum.
I have multiple questions about eigenstates and eigenvalues.
The Hilbert space is spanned by independent bases.
The textbook said that the eigenvectors of observable spans the Hilbert space.

Here comes the question.
Do the eigenvectors of multiple observables span the same Hilber space?

Here comes the other question.

I solved the time-independent Schrödinger equation for a ring with radius R, the potential is 0 and the boundary condition is that
\psi\left(\theta\right) = \psi\left(\theta + 2\pi\right).
The solution is
\psi\left(\theta\right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}e^{ik\theta} with k = 0, \pm1, \pm2, \pm 3 ....

The next question is to derive the L_{z} operator and find the eigenvalues for this operator.
I have derived the operator for L_{z} and it is
\hat{L}_{z} = i\hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta}.
The answer book states that the eigenvector
of the angular momentum can be found by filling in the solution of the Schrödinger equation, so
\hat{L}_{z}\psi\left(\theta\right) = \lambda\psi\left(\theta\right) or
i\hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}e^{ik\theta} \right) = \lambda \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}e^{ik\theta}.
Why is this? (Why apply an operator of the observable angular momentum on an eigenstate vector of energy)?
The solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation is an eigenstate of another observable and not angular momentum.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sebas4 said:
Summary:: Solving time-independent Schrödinger equation and find eigenvalues for observable angular momentum.

Why is this? (Why apply an operator of the observable angular momentum on an eigenstate vector of energy)?
How is it an eigenstate of energy ? What is your Hamiltonian ?
 
Sebas4 said:
Summary:: Solving time-independent Schrödinger equation and find eigenvalues for observable angular momentum.

I have multiple questions about eigenstates and eigenvalues.
The Hilbert space is spanned by independent bases.
The textbook said that the eigenvectors of observable spans the Hilbert space.

Here comes the question.
Do the eigenvectors of multiple observables span the same Hilber space?
The Hilbert space depends on the system. In this case, it's the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions on the ring. The different observables (in this case energy and angular momentum), then have bases that span this Hilbert space.
Sebas4 said:
Here comes the other question.

I solved the time-independent Schrödinger equation for a ring with radius R, the potential is 0 and the boundary condition is that
\psi\left(\theta\right) = \psi\left(\theta + 2\pi\right).
The solution is
\psi\left(\theta\right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}e^{ik\theta} with k = 0, \pm1, \pm2, \pm 3 ....

The next question is to derive the L_{z} operator and find the eigenvalues for this operator.
I have derived the operator for L_{z} and it is
\hat{L}_{z} = i\hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta}.
The answer book states that the eigenvector
of the angular momentum can be found by filling in the solution of the Schrödinger equation, so
\hat{L}_{z}\psi\left(\theta\right) = \lambda\psi\left(\theta\right) or
i\hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}e^{ik\theta} \right) = \lambda \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}e^{ik\theta}.
Why is this? (Why apply an operator of the observable angular momentum on an eigenstate vector of energy)?
The solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation is an eigenstate of another observable and not angular momentum.
In any system where there is zero potential, the energy and momentum (or angular momentum) operators are closely related. In this case:
$$\hat H = -\frac {\hbar^2} {2mR^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta^2} \ \ \text{and} \ \ \hat{L_z} = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$$It's not surprising that they have similar eigenvectors.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
It should be
$$\hat{H}=\frac{1}{2m a^2} \hat{L}_z^2=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m R^2} \partial_{\theta}^2, \quad \hat{L}_z=-\mathrm{i} \hbar \partial_{\theta},$$
where ##R## is the radius of the ring. The sign of the angular-momentum operator is, of course, a convention, but I've never seen another convention than the one with the minus. It's analogous to define the usual momentum operator as ##\hat{p}=-\mathrm{i} \hbar \partial_x## for motion along a straight line (or ##\hat{p}=-\mathrm{i} \hbar \vec{\nabla}## for motion in 3D space).

It's clear that the ##\hat{L}_z## eigenbasis is also an eigenbasis for ##\hat{H}## in this case, and they are simpler in the sense that they are non-degenerate, i.e., for each eigenvalue there's only one linearly independent eigenvector. The calculation in #1 is correct:
$$u_k(\theta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi R}} \exp(\mathrm{i} k \theta), \quad k \in \mathbb{Z}$$
with the scalar product of wave functions defined as
$$\langle \psi_1|\psi_2 \rangle=\int_0^{2 \pi} \mathrm{d} \theta R \psi_1^*(\theta) \psi_2(\theta).$$
The eigenvalues of ##\hat{L}_z## are ##l_z=\hbar k##.

The energy eigenvalues are
$$E_k=\frac{\hbar^2}{2m R^2} k^2.$$
As you see, only the ground state with ##k=0## is non-degenerate, while the energy eigenvalues for each ##k \neq 0## is two-fold degenerate.

The angular-momentum eigenstates are obviously a complete set of orthonormal wave functions since you can express any square-integrable ##2 \pi## periodic function in terms of these functions, which leads to the usual Fourier series,
$$\psi_k=\langle u_k|\psi \rangle = \int_0^{2 \pi} \mathrm{d} \theta \frac{\sqrt{R}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp(-\mathrm{i} k \theta) \psi(x), \quad \psi(x)=\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi R}} \psi_k \exp(\mathrm{i} k x).$$
 
  • Like
Likes protonsarecool and PeroK
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
Back
Top