Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem

In summary: But when I use the commutator I get 2*d/d(x_i) * d/d(x_j). Am I doing something wrong here?Yes, you are doing something wrong. One possible mistake you could be making is trying to use the commutator for two vectors when you are only supposed to use it for one vector. Another possible mistake is forgetting to use the dot product between two vectors. Either of these mistakes can lead to incorrect results.
  • #1
eep
227
0
Hi,

I'm trying to prove that for a particle in a potential V(r), the rate of change of the expectation value of the orbital angular momentum L is equal to the expectation value of the torque:

[tex]
\frac{d}{dt}<L> = <N>
[/tex]

where

[tex] N = r \times (-\bigtriangledown{V}) [/tex]

Basically, I'm having problems calculating the commutor of the Hamiltonian and the angular momentum operator, as

[tex]
\frac{d}{dt}<L> = \frac{i}{\hbar}<[H,L]> + <\frac{\partial{L}}{\partial{t}}>
[/tex]

Any hints on how I can calculate this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
As always, when in doubt about where to start, go back to the basics. Use the position representation where [tex] \vec{p} = - i \hbar \vec{\nabla} [/tex] and simply calculate the commutator explicitly.

Some things to consider:
Clearly the partial derivative term vanishes. You can argue one of the terms in the Hamiltonian commutator is zero based on rotational symmetry. You also need only calculate a single component. If these points are not obvious to you, think about them until you see clearly why they are true.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Thanks for the tips. I want to say that the momentum term in the Hamiltonian commuter is zero as the linear momentum should have constant magnitude. A change in one direction will be counteracted by changes in the other directions. Then I got into trouble trying to commute V(r) with L. Now you said that I only need to calculate one component, and the way this equation is written makes me think of it as a vector equation. That is I have 3 equations in the form

[tex]
\frac{d<L_x>}{dt} = \frac{i}{\hbar}<[H,L_x]> = <N_x>
[/tex]

But I don't think this can be right as as the Hamiltonian commutes with each component of angular momentum. What am I doing wrong here? And what's wrong with my tex code?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Hi eep,

1) The commutator with the kinetic energy is zero because this term is rotationally invariant.

2) You do indeed have a vector equation there. However, the components of the angular momentum don't necessarily commute with the Hamiltonian. Otherwise, angular momentum would always be conserved for every system! Earlier I gave you some tips on proving that the angular momentum does commute with the Hamiltonian if the potential is central, but here you're supposed to be looking at a more general case (I think!).

Oh yeah, don't worry about the latex, it seems the whole site is broken right now.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Well this is what I don't get. In the previous problem I proved that the Hamiltonian commutes with all three components of L, provided that V depends only on r. In this problem, the question states "Prove that for a particle in a potential V(r)...". I'm not seeing what the difference in the potentials are. I would go through the same steps to calculate the commuter of H with Lx which leads me to [H,L] = 0...
 
  • #6
I think the difference is that they want you to assume that V is general function of x, y, and z, not just a function of r. If your potential is only a function of r, then certainly the commutator vanishes. However, since you are being asked to prove a general theorem, I think that you are supposed to leave the potential completely general.
 
  • #7
Well thank you. If you leave the potential completely general then everything works out correctly. I guess there's a big difference between the potential depends only on r (scalar) and the function V(r) where r is a vector. Thanks, you gave me a much better understanding of the situation. One more thing, though. By saying that the commutator of the kinetic energy with angular momentum is zero because the term is rotationally invariant, you're saying that kinectic energy doesn't change if you rotate your coordinates, right? Why does this guarantee that the commutator will be zero? I must need more sleep!
 
  • #8
You're welcome!

Regarding the kinetic energy term, the brief answer to your question is that the commutator with L represents a kind of first order change caused by L. Now, what sort of changes does L cause? Well, L is the generator of rotations, so if the kinetic energy is rotationally invariant, L shouldn't be able to change it.
 
  • #9
I'm having trouble with the mathematical argument that [T,L_i] = 0. When I compute it, using T = -(h-bar)^2/(2m) * Laplacian I get 2*d/d(x_i) * d/d(x_j).
 

1. What is the Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem?

The Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem is a mathematical principle that describes the behavior of rotating systems in quantum mechanics. It is based on the more general Ehrenfest's Theorem, which relates the time evolution of quantum mechanical expectation values to the classical equations of motion.

2. How is the Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem derived?

The Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem is derived using the principles of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It involves applying the operator corresponding to the angular momentum of a rotating system to the wave function of the system, and using the commutator relationship between the operator and the Hamiltonian to obtain the time evolution equation.

3. What is the significance of the Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem?

The Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem is significant because it allows us to better understand the behavior of rotating quantum systems. It provides a way to connect classical mechanics, which describes the behavior of macroscopic objects, with quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of microscopic particles.

4. How does the Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem relate to angular momentum conservation?

The Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem is closely related to the conservation of angular momentum in quantum systems. This is because the theorem describes how the expectation value of the angular momentum operator changes with time, and this is directly related to the conservation of angular momentum in a system.

5. Are there any real-world applications of the Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem?

Yes, the Rotational Analog to Ehrenfest's Theorem has been applied in various fields, such as molecular dynamics and nuclear physics. It has also been used in the development of quantum technologies, such as quantum computing and quantum sensors.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
206
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
764
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
741
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
459
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
30
Views
1K
Back
Top