Quantum Mechanics - Identical and Non-Identical Spin 1 particles

Tangent87
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am doing question 32D on page 18 here:

http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/pastpapers/2005/Part_2/PaperII_3.pdf

and I am stuck on the second paragraph where we have to explain how to construct the two-particle states of lowest energy for (i). identical spin-1 particles with combined total spin J=1, and (ii). non-identical spin-1 particles with combined total spin J=1.

I found in the first part of the question that all three of the J=1 spin states are antisymmetric, and thus for (i) since we have identical spin 1 particles the total state must be symmetric overall therefore the only possible state is \psi_1(A)\psi_1(B). But I'm not sure about this because I don't think it takes into account the fact that we're in a total spin J=1 state.

For (ii), I said that since the particles are non-identical there is no exchange symmetry and so we can have any of the three states: \psi_1(A)\psi_1(B)|1 M> for M=-1,0 or 1. Is that correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Tangent87 said:
I found in the first part of the question that all three of the J=1 spin states are antisymmetric, and thus for (i) since we have identical spin 1 particles the total state must be symmetric overall therefore the only possible state is \psi_1(A)\psi_1(B). But I'm not sure about this because I don't think it takes into account the fact that we're in a total spin J=1 state.

If the total state must be symmetric and the spin states are all antisymmetric, that means the wavefunction must be antisymmetric. \psi_1(A)\psi_1(B) is not antisymmetric.

For (ii), I said that since the particles are non-identical there is no exchange symmetry and so we can have any of the three states: \psi_1(A)\psi_1(B)|1 M> for M=-1,0 or 1. Is that correct?

Yes, and all three states have identical energy.
 
ideasrule said:
If the total state must be symmetric and the spin states are all antisymmetric, that means the wavefunction must be antisymmetric. \psi_1(A)\psi_1(B) is not antisymmetric.

So in order to have the wavefunction being antisymmetric would I need to have something like \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\psi_1(A)\psi_2(B)-\psi_2(A)\psi_1(B))?

The only trouble I have with this is that the wavefunction now involves terms from the second energy level whilst we're only dealing with the lowest energy level, is this a problem?
 
So in order to have the wavefunction being antisymmetric would I need to have something like \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\psi_1(A)\psi_2(B)-\psi_2(A)\psi_1(B))?

Yes, that's correct.
The only trouble I have with this is that the wavefunction now involves terms from the second energy level whilst we're only dealing with the lowest energy level, is this a problem?

The wavefunction involves second-energy-level one-particle states, while the problem asks for the lowest-energy two-particle state. For fermions, the lowest-energy two-particle state indeed includes excited one-particle states.
 
Ah okay, that clears everything up, thanks again.
 
Hello everyone, I’m considering a point charge q that oscillates harmonically about the origin along the z-axis, e.g. $$z_{q}(t)= A\sin(wt)$$ In a strongly simplified / quasi-instantaneous approximation I ignore retardation and take the electric field at the position ##r=(x,y,z)## simply to be the “Coulomb field at the charge’s instantaneous position”: $$E(r,t)=\frac{q}{4\pi\varepsilon_{0}}\frac{r-r_{q}(t)}{||r-r_{q}(t)||^{3}}$$ with $$r_{q}(t)=(0,0,z_{q}(t))$$ (I’m aware this isn’t...
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
Back
Top