Number of Angular Momentum States (3 particles)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of angular momentum states for a system of three particles, each with a total angular momentum of 1. Participants explore how to determine the total number of angular momentum states when combining multiple particles, particularly focusing on the transition from a two-particle to a three-particle system.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the method of combining angular momentum states from two particles and how to extend this to a third particle. There is uncertainty about whether to multiply or add the number of states derived from the two-particle system.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights regarding the counting of states and the concept of degeneracy, while others express confusion about the correct approach to calculating the total number of states for the three-particle system. The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of differing nomenclature regarding the terms "states" and "levels," which may affect how participants conceptualize the problem. Additionally, the discussion includes considerations of how angular momentum states are defined and the implications of adding particles to the system.

  • #31
Thanks. I was thinking about when one has only one singlet.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Vanadium 50 said:
You're right, on that.

The fully antisymmetric state is unique, by inspection. Every other bit of my argument is invalid. (But I still suspect a theorem)

Here's a symmetry argument for the three spin-1 case.

First, we analyse by ##j## values (as before):

##j = 3## has ##7## levels
##j = 2## has ##5## levels
##j = 1## has ##3## levels
##j = 0## has ##1## level

There are numerous ways to meet the condition of degeneracies, assuming a common degeneracy across each level.

Then, we analyse by ##m## value:

##m = 3## is ##1## dimensional
##m = 2## is ##3## dimensional (cycles of ##110##)
##m =1## is ##6## dimensional (cycles of ##100## and ##11-1##
##m = 0## is ##7## dimensional (cycles of ##10-1## and ##000##)

Now, ##J^2## is symmetric and preserves the ##m##-value, hence preserves the above dimensionality, in terms of ##|j m \rangle ## eigenstates. That might be your theorem:

There is only one ##m = 3## state, hence ##j = 3## has degeneracy ##1## - i.e. no degeneracy (as previously established).

##m = 2## is ##3## dimensional. One dimension is for ##j = 3##, leaving two for ##j = 2##. Hence ##j = 2## has degeneracy ##2##.

Looking at ##m = 1## implies ##j = 1## has degeneracy ##3##.

And ##m = 0## implies ##j =0## has degeneracy ##1##.

Looking at the negative values gives the same answer. So, we have, as expected:

##j = 3## has ##7## levels with degeneracy ##1##
##j = 2## has ##5## levels with degeneracy ##2##
##j = 1## has ##3## levels with degeneracy ##3##
##j = 0## has ##1## level degeneracy ##1##

The same argument also works for the established result in the four-electron case.
 
  • #33
So the theorem is that for addition of 2 or 3 integral angular momenta j, there is exactly one singlet. For more angular momenta the number of singlets is larger: ten j = 1 have 603 singlets.

For four j = 1, the number of singlets is 2j + 1. For five, it's (5j2 = 5j + 2)/2.
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K