Physical meaning of zero eigenvalue

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physical meaning of a zero eigenvalue in the context of a Hamiltonian describing a quantum system with spin. Participants explore the implications of having a zero eigenvalue associated with the state of m=0, particularly in relation to the dynamics of the system and the nature of allowed states.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the physical meaning of the zero eigenvalue for the m=0 state, wondering if it implies that this value will not be observed.
  • Another participant suggests that a state with a zero eigenvalue typically indicates the ground state, but notes that it is unclear whether the other eigenvalues are positive or negative.
  • Concerns are raised about how the system can evolve between m=+1 and m=-1 without passing through m=0, despite m=0 being an allowed state.
  • Further clarification is sought regarding the definition of the ground state, as one participant points out that the ground state should have the lowest energy, which contradicts the idea of m=0 being the ground state when its energy is zero.
  • Another participant explains that the expectation of measuring a particular value of m changes over time, emphasizing that individual measurements yield only +1 or -1, not m=0.
  • A different perspective is introduced, noting that in quantum mechanics, an eigenvalue of E=0 does not necessarily indicate anything special, as constants can be added to the Hamiltonian.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation of the zero eigenvalue and its implications for the ground state. There is no consensus on whether m=0 can be considered the ground state or how the dynamics of the system operate in relation to this eigenvalue.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the energy levels of the eigenstates and the implications of time evolution in quantum mechanics. The discussion reflects uncertainty about the definitions and interpretations of quantum states and their transitions.

dudy
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hello,
Given the hamiltonian :

[itex]H = -( aS_z^2 + b(S_+^2 +S_-^2) )[/itex]

with S=1 and a,b>0 are constants.

working with the base: { |m=1> , |m=-1> , |m=0> }
The matrix form of H is:

[itex] <br /> H = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> -ah^2 & -bh^2 & 0 \\<br /> -bh^2 & -ah^2 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)<br /> [/itex]

or, in the base: { (1/sqrt(2))( |1> + |-1> ) , (1/sqrt(2))( |1> - |-1> ) , |0> }

[itex] <br /> H = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> -(a+b)h^2 & 0 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & -(a-b)h^2 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)<br /> [/itex]

So, my question is- what is the physical meaning of '0' as an eigenvalue of a state (of m=0 in this case)? Does it mean this value will not be observed ?
If that's the case- I am a bit confused, because the time-evolution of a state under this hamiltonian's dynamics, goes something like:
cos(aht)|1> + isin(aht)|-1>
meaning the "m" value pariodically shifts between +-1.
Now, given that m=0 is basically an allowed state of the system, how can it shift from an m=+1 orientation to m=-1, without going thru m=0 ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dudy said:
Hello,
Given the hamiltonian :

[itex]H = -( aS_z^2 + b(S_+^2 +S_-^2) )[/itex]

with S=1 and a,b>0 are constants.

working with the base: { |m=1> , |m=-1> , |m=0> }
The matrix form of H is:

[itex] <br /> H = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> -ah^2 & -bh^2 & 0 \\<br /> -bh^2 & -ah^2 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)<br /> [/itex]

or, in the base: { (1/sqrt(2))( |1> + |-1> ) , (1/sqrt(2))( |1> - |-1> ) , |0> }

[itex] <br /> H = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> -(a+b)h^2 & 0 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & -(a-b)h^2 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)<br /> [/itex]

So, my question is- what is the physical meaning of '0' as an eigenvalue of a state (of m=0 in this case)? Does it mean this value will not be observed ?
If that's the case- I am a bit confused, because the time-evolution of a state under this hamiltonian's dynamics, goes something like:
cos(aht)|1> + isin(aht)|-1>
meaning the "m" value pariodically shifts between +-1.
Now, given that m=0 is basically an allowed state of the system, how can it shift from an m=+1 orientation to m=-1, without going thru m=0 ?

A state which has 0 eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian typically means the ground state. It's not clear from the info you provided whether the other two eigenvalues are +ve or -ve. If -ve, I guess a bound state is possible for the system -- but this doesn't matter very much for the answer...

The time evolution of one of your non-ground states (+1, or -1) just shows that they evolve into linear combinations (superpositions) of the two. They do not need to "go through" the 0 state to do this. It just means that at one instant of time, the probability of finding the system in the +1 state is 1 (certain), whereas later there's a nonzero probability of finding the system either in state +1 or state -1. You'll never find the system in the ground state unless your initial state is a superposition of the ground state and one of the other states.

HTH.
 
Thank you very much for the reply!
I still don't understand a couple of things..

a. How could m=0 be the ground state, when its energy is 0, and the energy of the other two hamiltonian eigenstates are negative. shouldn't the ground state have the lowest energy?

b. what physical mechanism can make the spin flip between m= +-1 orientations, without having any probability of being at m=0, although m=0 is basically a "legal" orientation?
I'm okay with, say, an electron "jumping" from one orbital from another without even being in between orbitals, but this is because being "in between" is not an allowed state. But in our case, its like the "in between" zone is allowed, but the electron still ignores it.
 
dudy said:
a. How could m=0 be the ground state, when its energy is 0, and the energy of the other two hamiltonian eigenstates are negative. shouldn't the ground state have the lowest energy?
I overlooked the part of your first post where you said a,b > 0. Yes, the ground state is the one with lowest energy.

b. what physical mechanism can make the spin flip between m= +-1 orientations, without having any probability of being at m=0, although m=0 is basically a "legal" orientation?
Let's go back to something you said earlier:

cos(aht)|1> + isin(aht)|-1>
meaning the "m" value periodically shifts between +-1.
It's a bit misleading to think that the "m" value periodically shifts deterministically. Rather, the expectation of measuring a particular value of m (over a large ensemble of identically-prepared copies of the system) changes. For any single measurement, you only get +1 or -1. But the relative probability of these two results changes over time.
 
b/c in QM you can add any constant E° to H, an eigenvalue E=0 need not mean anything special.

In the hydrogen atom case E=0 is the boundary between discrete (bound) and continuous (unbound) eigenvalues (solutions).
In the harmonic oscillator case E=0 is not a solution unless you shift H by -1/2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
900
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K