Quantum version of Larmor precession

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the quantum version of Larmor precession, specifically the evolution of a quantum state under varying magnetic fields. Participants clarify that the system evolves first under a magnetic field in the z direction and then in the y direction. The correct calculation of probabilities is emphasized, with the final probability needing to be a unitless value. The consensus is that the probability derived as ##0## from the formula ##P = \dfrac{1}{4}exp \biggr( \dfrac{-2t\mu BB}{\hbar}\biggr ) \biggr | (1-1) \biggr |^2 = 0## is accurate, as the argument of the exponential must be unitless.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and state evolution
  • Familiarity with Larmor precession concepts
  • Knowledge of magnetic field interactions in quantum systems
  • Ability to manipulate complex numbers in probability calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical foundations of quantum state evolution
  • Learn about the implications of magnetic field direction on quantum states
  • Explore the concept of unitless quantities in probability theory
  • Investigate the derivation of Larmor precession in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, physicists focusing on magnetic interactions, and anyone interested in the mathematical aspects of quantum state evolution.

Bobs
Messages
14
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement

gawdbdm.png


Homework Equations


I didn't get what this actually means.

The Attempt at a Solution


DtD4BYE.png

DpSH9Y6.png

I'm not sure whether it is correct. Could you take a look?
Regards!
 

Attachments

  • gawdbdm.png
    gawdbdm.png
    5 KB · Views: 1,032
  • DtD4BYE.png
    DtD4BYE.png
    54 KB · Views: 965
  • DpSH9Y6.png
    DpSH9Y6.png
    68 KB · Views: 985
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello. I haven't gone through all of the details of your calculations. But, I don't see where you have taken into account the evolution of the system between ##t = 0## and ##t = T##. It appears to me that you are assuming that the system is in state ##\chi_+^{(x)}## at time ##t = T##.

upload_2018-6-21_14-3-53.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-6-21_14-3-53.png
    upload_2018-6-21_14-3-53.png
    4.7 KB · Views: 599
Do you see any mistakes at the final answer? And yes, I'm assuming that the system in state ##\chi_+^{(x)}## at time ##t=T##. Staying tuned for your sincerely reply!
 
Maybe we are interpreting the statement of the problem differently. The way I read it, at time ##t = 0## the system is in state ##|\psi(0) \rangle = \chi_+^{(x)}##. It evolves for time ##T## with ##\mathbf B## in the z direction. Then, in the time interval ##T \leq t \leq 2T## it evolves with ##\mathbf B## in the y direction. So, you will need to find ##|\psi(T) \rangle## before you can determine the state for ##t > T##.

Your final result for the probability appears to be a complex number. But probabilities are real numbers. Also, shouldn't the answer depend on the magnetic field strength B?
 
It looks like this post has appeared twice.
Bobs said:
Do you see any mistakes at the final answer? And yes, I'm assuming that the system in state at time ##t=T##. Staying tuned for your sincerely reply!
The systaem will not be in state ##\chi_+^{(x)}## at t = T. As TSny points out in the above post, the evolution between t = 0 and t = T is dictated by the magnetic field only in the z direction. You should calculate |ψ(T)> from that, and then let that evolve from t = T to t = 2T with the magnetic field only in the y direction.
 
I found the probability as ##\dfrac{B^2}{2}## is that correct?
 
Bobs said:
I found the probability as ##\dfrac{B^2}{2}## is that correct?
That answer can't possibly be correct. Probabilities are unitless.
 
Finally, I've found the probability as ##0## from ##P = \dfrac{1}{4}exp \biggr( \dfrac{-2t\mu BB}{\hbar}\biggr ) \biggr | (1-1) \biggr |^2 = 0## Does that seem correct now? Thanks in advance.
 
What steps did you follow to arrive at that answer?
 
  • #10
Is that correct? Or what would be the correct probability we're looking for? I'm receiving too many different answers.
 
  • #11
No. The argument of the exponential should be unitless.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K