Question about an equation from anapole measurement paper

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BillKet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurement Paper
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the treatment of hyperfine and spin-rotational terms in perturbation theory as outlined in a specific paper. The user questions the validity of treating the term ##c(I\cdot n)(S\cdot n)## perturbatively, particularly regarding the matrix element between the states ##\psi_+ = |0,0>|1/2,1/2>|1/2,1/2>## and ##\psi_- = |1,1>|1/2,-1/2>|1/2,1/2>##. The user initially believes this term does not vanish, leading to confusion about its perturbative treatment. Ultimately, they recognize that the term must be zero due to parity considerations, but seek clarification on the apparent contradiction in the calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics, particularly hyperfine interactions
  • Familiarity with perturbation theory in quantum mechanics
  • Knowledge of angular momentum operators and their representations
  • Experience with matrix elements and parity in quantum states
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the principles of perturbation theory in quantum mechanics
  • Study the role of parity in quantum state interactions
  • Examine the mathematical treatment of angular momentum operators
  • Explore examples of hyperfine splitting and its implications in quantum systems
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, graduate students in physics, and researchers focusing on hyperfine interactions and perturbation theory in quantum mechanics.

BillKet
Messages
311
Reaction score
30
Hello! I have a question about this paper. They claim that the hyperfine and spin-rotational terms can be treated perturbatively (they do perform a full diagonalization, too, but they claim that perturbation theory is good to get an estimate of the effect). I agree with that for most of the terms, except for ##c(I\cdot n)(S\cdot n)##. For example, let's assume we use as the level crossing the states (using the notation in order N, S, I):

$$\psi_+ = |0,0>|1/2,1/2>|1/2,1/2>$$
and
$$\psi_- = |1,1>|1/2,-1/2>|1/2,1/2>$$

The operator ##c(I\cdot n)(S\cdot n)## can be expanded (I will ignore some constants, I will write just the operators) as ##c(I_zY_1^0+I_+Y_1^{-1}+I_-Y_1^1)(S_zY_1^0+S_+Y_1^{-1}+S_-Y_1^1)## and among these, the term ##cI_zY_1^0S_-Y_1^1## doesn't seem to vanish when calculated between ##\psi_+## and ##\psi_-## i.e.

$$<\psi_-|cI_zY_1^0S_-Y_1^1|\psi_+> \neq 0$$
which is about equal to c. But when doing perturbation theory, the effect of this term would be about ##\frac{c}{E_+-E_-}## and while c is very small, ##E_+-E_-## is much smaller (ideally as small as the parity violation effect), so I don't see how this can be treated pertubatively. Am I missing something? Is that matrix element actually vanishing? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BillKet said:
Hello! I have a question about this paper. They claim that the hyperfine and spin-rotational terms can be treated perturbatively (they do perform a full diagonalization, too, but they claim that perturbation theory is good to get an estimate of the effect). I agree with that for most of the terms, except for ##c(I\cdot n)(S\cdot n)##. For example, let's assume we use as the level crossing the states (using the notation in order N, S, I):

$$\psi_+ = |0,0>|1/2,1/2>|1/2,1/2>$$
and
$$\psi_- = |1,1>|1/2,-1/2>|1/2,1/2>$$

The operator ##c(I\cdot n)(S\cdot n)## can be expanded (I will ignore some constants, I will write just the operators) as ##c(I_zY_1^0+I_+Y_1^{-1}+I_-Y_1^1)(S_zY_1^0+S_+Y_1^{-1}+S_-Y_1^1)## and among these, the term ##cI_zY_1^0S_-Y_1^1## doesn't seem to vanish when calculated between ##\psi_+## and ##\psi_-## i.e.

$$<\psi_-|cI_zY_1^0S_-Y_1^1|\psi_+> \neq 0$$
which is about equal to c. But when doing perturbation theory, the effect of this term would be about ##\frac{c}{E_+-E_-}## and while c is very small, ##E_+-E_-## is much smaller (ideally as small as the parity violation effect), so I don't see how this can be treated pertubatively. Am I missing something? Is that matrix element actually vanishing? Thank you!
I realized I am dumb, of course that term has to be zero, as it would otherwise connect 2 terms of opposite parity. But I would appreciate if someone can help me figure out why does the math looks like it is not zero?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K