Quantum angular momentum proportionality constant

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the rising and lowering operators for angular momentum in quantum mechanics, specifically how the expressions L+/-|l,m> are proportional to |l, m+/-1>. The user seeks clarification on the implications of this proportionality, particularly in relation to normalization of quantum states. The conversation highlights the importance of commutation relations and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum states, emphasizing that eigenvectors must be normalized to maintain valid probabilities.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics concepts, particularly angular momentum
  • Familiarity with rising and lowering operators in quantum physics
  • Knowledge of commutation relations in quantum mechanics
  • Basic grasp of normalization of quantum states and their probabilistic interpretation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical derivation of angular momentum operators in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the normalization conditions for quantum states
  • Explore the implications of commutation relations on quantum state transformations
  • Investigate the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics and its applications
USEFUL FOR

Students and enthusiasts of quantum physics, particularly those studying angular momentum and operator theory, will benefit from this discussion.

bartrocs
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Hi, not a homework problem as such, but I am studying introductory quantum physics and having some trouble understanding how applying the rising or lowering operator for angular momentum implies:

L+/-|l,m> ∝ |l, m+/-1>
Basically, my question is the same as the first part (Q1) as described in the following link.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2552515

Regarding the answer to that post, I can get to the two expressions quite easily by using the commutation relations, but even after reading it multiple times, I don't understand how the proportionality is implied. I know this is probably trivial and I'm probably just missing some obvious fact due to the time being 1.30am. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because the state ##L_{+/-} |l,m\rangle## is not necessarily normalized, while all ##|l,m\rangle## must be normalized.
 
blue_leaf77, thanks. It was one of those lack of sleep things. I just woke up and realized this. Also, mathematically speaking, there is an infinite amount of choices for our eigenvector based on a given eigenstate and scale factor. We must obviously use the one that fits our operator, ie it must be normalised.
 
bartrocs said:
We must obviously use the one that fits our operator, ie it must be normalised.
The vectors (including eigenvectors of an operator) in QM are agreed to be normalized because of the probabilistic interpretation assigned to the inner product between any two vectors. The probability of finding a given state to be in that same state must be equal to the maximum allowed value for a probability, which is unity.
 
okay thanks I understand my mistake and (hopefully) will not make it again :smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K