Proving Electron in Energy Eigenstate Can't Be in Lz or Sz Eigenstate

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the spin-orbit interaction in the hydrogen atom, specifically addressing the question of whether an electron in an energy eigenstate can also be in an eigenstate of either the z-component of angular momentum (L_z) or spin (S_z). Participants explore the relationship between the modified Hamiltonian and the commutation relations of various operators.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to show that the commutators of the Hamiltonian with L_z and S_z are non-zero, indicating that these observables cannot be simultaneously measured. There is exploration of the relationship between the operators involved, including the use of the total angular momentum operator J.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering insights into the mathematical relationships between the operators and questioning the assumptions underlying the problem. Some guidance has been provided regarding the properties of the commutation relations, and there is acknowledgment of the Compatibility Theorem as a relevant concept.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem is based on a past exam question, which may imply certain expectations about the level of detail required in the solution. There is also mention of the perturbative nature of the spin-orbit interaction and its effects on the Hamiltonian.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
The spin-orbit interaction in Hydrogen adds an extra term [itex]\alpha \mathbf{L} \cdot \mathbf{S}[/itex] to the Hamiltonian of the system. If the electron is in an energy eigenstat show that it cannot also be in an eigenstate of either [itex]L_z[/itex] or [itex]S_z[/itex].

I have that the modified Hamiltonian is given as [itex]\hat{H}_{S-O}=f(r) \mathbf{\hat{L}} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{S}}[/itex]. i have in my notes that [itex]f(r)=\frac{1}{2M^2c^2r} \frac{dV(r)}{dr}[/itex]. this is a past exam question so I am guessing its probably asking a bit much to memorise exactly what f(r) is so i reckon it should be manageable using just [itex]\hat{H}_{S-O}=f(r) \mathbf{\hat{L}} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{S}}[/itex].

but have no idea how to proceed...

in my notes they somehow substitute [itex]\mathbf{\hat{L}} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{S}}=[\hat{J}^2-\hat{L}^2-\hat{S}^2][/itex].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't really know what you're talking about in the middle section but to show that "If the electron is in an energy eigenstat show that it cannot also be in an eigenstate of either [itex]L_z[/itex] or [itex]S_z[/itex]." You just have to show that the commutator of H with Lz and Sz is non-zero (i.e. they are not simultaneous observables). If the original hamiltonian commutes with Sz then all you have to show is that [Hso,Sz] and [Hso,Lz] don't equal zero. As for your relation at the bottom that just comes from:

[itex]J^2=(L+S)^2=L^2+S^2+2L \cdot S[/itex]
[itex]L \cdot S =\frac{J^2-L^2-S^2}{2}[/itex]
 
so we assume that [itex][\hat{H}.\hat{S_z}]=0[/itex]

now if this "perturbation" changes [itex]\hat{H} \rightarrow \hat{H}'[/itex] then

[itex][\hat{H}',\hat{S_z}]=\hat{H}' \hat{S_z} - \hat{S_z} \hat{H}'[/itex]
[itex]=\left(\hat{H}+\hat{L} \cdot \hat{S} \right) \hat {S_z} - \hat{S_z} \left(\hat{H}+\hat{L} \cdot \hat{S} \right)= \left( \hat{L} \cdot \hat{S} \right) \hat{S_z} - \hat{S_z} \left(\hat{L} \cdot \hat{S} \right)[/itex]
i don't understand why this would be non-zero?
 
Well, what is [tex]\vec{L}[/tex] [tex]\vec{S}[/tex]?
Try to expand it into J, L, S.
And you know, if Sz commute with each one of them, then it commutes with [tex]\vec{L}[/tex] [tex]\vec{S}[/tex].
 
so i can expand L.S =1/2(J^2-L^2-S^2)

so S_z will commute with S^2

but how do i know about J^2 and L^2?
 
my bad, I just run back and read my note, and there is an even more simple way to do it
What is [tex]\vec{L}[/tex]dot[tex]\vec{S}[/tex], by definition.
It is actually [tex]L_x[/tex][tex]S_x[/tex]+[tex]L_y[/tex][tex]S_y[/tex]+[tex]L_z[/tex][tex]S_z[/tex]
Now, could you tell why they don't commute?
 
is it because

[itex][\hat{S_i},\hat{S_j}]=i \hbar \epsilon_{ijk} \hat{S_k} \neq 0[/itex]
 
Bingo. And later on, or right now, you'll find out that J is in fact the one that commutes with L dot S. And although individual L_z, S_z don't commute with L dot S, their linear combination, J_z does.
 
latentcorpse said:
is it because

[itex][\hat{S_i},\hat{S_j}]=i \hbar \epsilon_{ijk} \hat{S_k} \neq 0[/itex]

Just one more note. Although this is the essential reason, you probably want to do the evaluation because it is a nice practice.
 
  • #10
ok. can we just quickly recap the theory behind this.

we want to show [itex][\hat{H}',\hat{S_z}] \neq 0 , [\hat{H},\hat{L_z}] \neq 0[/itex] as then we know that they aren't simultaneous observables and hence if we are in an energy eigenstate, we cann;t also be in an eigenstate of either [itex]\hat{S_z}[/itex] or [itex]\hat{L_z}[/itex] by the Compatibility Theorem. Is this true?
 
  • #11
Yeap, you got it. That thm is really powerful. You'll probably encounter it through our your class (although now I am wondering whether it is if and only if. It should anyway).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K