Undergrad Possible measurements of z-component of angular momentum

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the measurement of the z-component of angular momentum for a given wavefunction. The wavefunction is expressed as a superposition of eigenfunctions of the angular momentum operator, which allows for the identification of possible measurement values. The original wavefunction can be rewritten to highlight its components, each corresponding to specific eigenvalues of the operator. Applying the operator to the entire wavefunction yields the expectation value, while the Born rule provides the probabilities for measuring each eigenvalue. Ultimately, the possible outcomes for the z-component of angular momentum are m=0, ±1, based on the wavefunction's decomposition.
Fosheimdet
Messages
15
Reaction score
2
I'm looking through an old exam, and don't quite understand the solution given for one of the problems.

We have given a wavefunction g(\phi,\theta) = \sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi}}(-cos(\theta) + isin(\theta)sin(\phi))

and are asked what possible measurements can be made of the z-component of the angular momentum.
My instinct is to use the operator \hat{L}_z = \frac{\hbar}{i} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} on the wavefunction, which shows that g is not an eigenfunction of the operator.

In the solution however, they rewrote g as g(\phi,\theta) = \sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi}}(-cos(\theta) + \frac{1}{2}sin(\theta)(e^{i\phi}-e^{-i\phi})) and said that the first term is an eigenfunction of \hat{L}_z with the eigenvalue m=0, the second term has the eigenvalue m=1 and the last m=-1. Therefore the possible measurements are m=0,\pm{1}.

My question is why this is valid. Why does one of the components of the original wavefunction give you one of the measurement values? Don't you have to apply \hat{L}_z to the entire wavefunction? Has this got something to do with your choice of \phi?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fosheimdet said:
My question is why this is valid. Why does one of the components of the original wavefunction give you one of the measurement values? Don't you have to apply \hat{L}_z to the entire wavefunction? Has this got something to do with your choice of \phi?

They've just rewritten the wavefunction as a superposition of three eigenfunctions.
If you apply ##L_z## to the entire wave function you will get the expectation value of ##L_z##. The possible results and their probabilities are given by the Born rule: The result will be an eigenvalue, and the probability of getting a particular eigenvalue is the square of the coefficient of that eigenfunction.
 
I think, it's just formulated in a somewhat strange way. I guess, what they wanted to know is, which possible values ##L_z## can take, if the system is prepared in the given state. Since the state belongs obviously to ##l=1##, you can just calculate
$$\langle 1,m |g \rangle=\int_{\Omega} \mathrm{d}^2 \Omega [Y_1^m(\vartheta,\varphi)]^* g(\vartheta,\varphi) \quad \text{for} \quad m \in \{-1,1,0 \}.$$
Then all ##m## are possible outcomes of an ##L_z## measurement, for which this product is different from 0. Of course this is equivalent to the answer given in #1, because indeed you can immediately read off the decomposition of ##g## in terms of ##Y_1^m##.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
984
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K