I Physical eigenstates of systems of n particles of spins sᵢ?

tomdodd4598
Messages
137
Reaction score
13
I am relatively well versed when it comes to systems of spin, or doing the maths for them at least, but am unsure whether all of the {L2, Lz, (other required quantum numbers)} basis eigenstates for a general system of n particles of spins si, where si is the spin of the ith particle, can actually exist in nature. I am new to the concept and therefore don't know the full ins and outs of requiring to symmetrise or antisymmetrise wave functions depending on whether you're dealing with bosons or fermions, and I can only imagine this places restrictions on the spins the particles can have. It's also possible the n particles may contain both bosons and fermions, and in that case I'm even more clueless. I also understand whether the particles are distinguishable or not plays a major role, and whether, for example, this is assumed or not in the example below.

For example, suppose I had three particles, two of spin 1/2 and one of spin 1. The eigenstates of L2, and Lz, |s,m>, are |2,2>, |2,1>, |2,0>, |2,-1>, |2,-2>, |1,1>1, |1,0>1, |1,-1>1, |1,1>2, |1,0>2 and |1,-1>2 (an additional quantum number is needed to distinguish between the |1,m> states).
Of these, which ones could actually exist, or could some groups of them be realized in different scenarios?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If particles have different spins, then they are definitely not identical, and you can treat them independently.

In the case of the two spin-1/2, you get the "classic" singlet + triplet states. The singlet state combines with all three possible states for the spin-1 particle, giving
$$
\begin{align*}
|1,1\rangle_3 &= | 0, 0 \rangle_{1/2} \otimes |1,1\rangle_1 \\
|1,0\rangle_3 &= | 0, 0 \rangle_{1/2} \otimes |1,0\rangle_1 \\
|1,-1\rangle_3 &= | 0, 0 \rangle_{1/2} \otimes |1,-1\rangle_1 \\
\end{align*}
$$
(the index indicates whether it is the 3-body state, the state of the two spin-1/2 particles, or the state of the spin-1).

For the triplet of the spin-1/2, each state of the triplet combines with the three states of the spin-1. According to the rules of addition of angular momenta, for ##\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{S}_1 + \mathbf{S}_2##, the allowed values for ##S## are
$$
S = S_1 + S_2, S_1 + S_2-1, \ldots, \left| S_1 - S_2 \right|
$$
which in this case gives ##S = 2, 1, 0##. So the three-body states will be ##|2,2\rangle_3##, ##|2,1\rangle_3##, ##|2,0\rangle_3##, ##|2,-1\rangle_3##, ##|2,2-\rangle_3##, ##|1,1\rangle_3##, ##|1,0\rangle_3##, ##|1,-1\rangle_3##, ##|0,0\rangle_3##. (You were missing that last one in the OP.) These states can be expressed in terms of the spin-1/2 and spin-1 states using the proper Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.
 
Ah, yes, I did miss the |0,0> state - thanks. I wrote a Mathematica script a month or so ago that can give me the set of orthogonal states, and this is what I get for two spin-1/2 and one spin-1, where, assuming particles 1 and 2 are the spin-1/2 particles and particle 3 is the spin-1 particle,
the first component of the vector is the probability amplitude for finding particle 1 with m=1/2, particle 2 with m=1/2 and particle 3 with m=1,
the second component is the p.a. for finding particle 1 with m=1/2, particle 2 with m=1/2 and particle 3 with m=0,
the third component is the p.a. for finding particle 1 with m=1/2, particle 2 with m=1/2 and particle 3 with m=-1,
the second component is the p.a. for finding particle 1 with m=1/2, particle 2 with m=-1/2 and particle 3 with m=1, etc:

|2,2> = [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
|2,1> = [0, 1/√2, 0, 1/2, 0, 0, 1/2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
|2,0> = [0, 0, 1/√6, 0, 1/√3, 0, 0, 1/√3, 0, 1/√6, 0, 0]
|2,-1> = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1/2, 0, 0, 1/2, 0, 1/√2, 0]
|2,-2> = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1]
...
|0,0> = [0, 0, 1/√3, 0, -1/√6, 0, 0, -1/√6, 0, 1/√3, 0, 0]

So I've found all of the spin eigenstates, but if we now also think about spatial wave functions, if the spin-1/2 particles are identical, the wave function has to be anti-symmetric with respect to swapping the two particles. Doesn't that mean that the only possibilities are that the spatial part is symmetric and the spin part is anti-symmetric or that the spatial part is anti-symmetric and the spin part is symmetric?
 
tomdodd4598 said:
So I've found all of the spin eigenstates, but if we now also think about spatial wave functions, if the spin-1/2 particles are identical, the wave function has to be anti-symmetric with respect to swapping the two particles. Doesn't that mean that the only possibilities are that the spatial part is symmetric and the spin part is anti-symmetric or that the spatial part is anti-symmetric and the spin part is symmetric?
That's correct.
 
DrClaude said:
That's correct.
Ok, I see now. I'm assuming then, that, when two bosons are exchanged, the whole wave function needs to be symmetric (so both the spatial and spin need to be symmetric anti-symmetric with respect to swapping them), and if there are no indistinguishable particles, then there's no restriction of this sort. Thanks :)
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...

Similar threads

Back
Top