Orbital angular momentum projection

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the probability of measuring total orbital angular momentum for a particle described by a position space wavefunction in spherical coordinates. Participants explore the implications of radial dependence in wavefunction coefficients and the necessary integrals involved in determining the probability.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant introduces the concept of expanding a wavefunction in terms of spherical harmonics and expresses curiosity about the probability of measuring total orbital angular momentum.
  • Another participant suggests a formula for the probability, correcting the first participant's initial approach by emphasizing the need for a spatial integral that includes angular components.
  • A third participant questions the necessity of the angular integral, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the requirement for the inner product between spherical harmonics.
  • A fourth participant clarifies that while the angular integrals may seem unnecessary, the norm is defined over all space, which justifies their inclusion in the calculation.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the clarification provided in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the necessity of the angular integrals in the probability calculation, as participants express differing views on their importance and the approach to the problem remains somewhat unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the definitions of the wavefunction and spherical harmonics, as well as the implications of radial dependence in the coefficients, which may affect the interpretation of the probability calculation.

VantagePoint72
Messages
820
Reaction score
34
Suppose I have particle in three dimensional space whose position space wavefunction in spherical coordinates is ##\psi(r,\theta,\phi)##. The spherical harmonics ##Y_{\ell,m}## are a complete set of functions on the 2-sphere and so any function ##f(\theta,\phi)## can be expanded as ##f(\theta,\phi) = \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} f_{\ell,m} Y_{\ell,m}(\theta,\phi)##. Since ##\psi## may, in general, have radial dependence, the coefficients ##f_{\ell,m}## will too, i.e., ##f_{\ell,m}(r)##.

I'm curious, then, what the probability is that the particle will be measured have total orbital angular momentum ##\sqrt{\ell_0(\ell_0+1)}\hbar##. I'm used to seeing expansions of quantum states in which the coefficients are just constants and so I'm a bit thrown by the radial dependence in this case. Intuitively, I'd expect that a total orbital angular momentum measurement would yield ##\sqrt{\ell_0(\ell_0+1)}\hbar## with probability
##
P(\ell_0) = \sum_{m=-\ell_0}^{\ell_0} \int_0^\infty dr |f_{\ell_0,m}(r)|^2
##

Is that right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Almost.
LastOneStanding said:
Intuitively, I'd expect that a total orbital angular momentum measurement would yield ##\sqrt{\ell_0(\ell_0+1)}\hbar## with probability
##
P(\ell_0) = \sum_{m=-\ell_0}^{\ell_0} \int_0^\infty dr |f_{\ell_0,m}(r)|^2
##

Is that right?

Almost. It should be the norm of the part of the wave function with ##\ell = \ell_0##, so

P(\ell_0) = \int_0^\infty dr r^2 \int_0^{2 \pi} d\phi \int_0^\pi d\theta \cos \theta \left| \sum_{m = -\ell_0}^{\ell_0} f_{\ell_0, m}(r) Y_{\ell_0, m}(\theta, \phi) \right|^2

You can use the orthogonality of the spherical harmonics to rewrite this as

P(\ell_0) = \sum_{m = -\ell_0}^{\ell_0} \int_0^\infty dr r^2 |f_{\ell_0, m}(r) |^2 \int_0^{2 \pi} d\phi \int_0^\pi d\theta \cos \theta \left|Y_{\ell_0, m}(\theta, \phi) \right|^2

If we assume that the spherical harmonics are normalized so that

\int_0^{2 \pi} d\phi \int_0^\pi d\theta \cos \theta |Y_{\ell, m}(\theta, \phi)|^2 = 1

Then we get

P(\ell_0) = \sum_{m=-\ell_0}^{\ell_0} \int_0^\infty dr r^2 |f_{\ell_0,m}(r)|^2
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: VantagePoint72
Interesting, I wouldn't have thought you'd need to do the whole spatial integral, particularly the angular part. I suppose that's just to take the inner product between spherical harmonics?
 
Well, you can see that you don't actually have to do any angular integrals in the end. But the norm is defined in terms of the integral over all space, so I started from that.
 
Very helpful, thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K