Orbital angular momentum projection

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 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.
 
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...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top