Rotational excitation of quantum particle

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between classical rotational energy and quantum rotational excitation, specifically the equation $$E_{rot} = (n^2 * ħ^2) / 2 I$$. It highlights that as the radius of a particle decreases, the moment of inertia increases, leading to a greater energy requirement for rotational excitation. The confusion arises from the interplay between angular momentum and moment of inertia, particularly when applying classical concepts to quantum particles like electrons. The conversation emphasizes that classical mechanics fails to accurately describe quantum behaviors, particularly in the context of point particles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics, specifically rotational dynamics
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics concepts, particularly angular momentum
  • Knowledge of the relationship between moment of inertia and rotational energy
  • Basic grasp of quantum numbers and their significance in quantum systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the concept of quantum angular momentum and its implications in quantum mechanics
  • Study the differences between classical and quantum mechanics, focusing on point particles
  • Investigate the role of moment of inertia in quantum systems and its effects on energy levels
  • Learn about the mathematical formulation of quantum rotational excitation and its applications
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in physics, particularly those focusing on quantum mechanics, rotational dynamics, and the transition from classical to quantum theories.

quantumSpaghetti
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I was watching a lecture and there was a connection drawn between classical rotational energy and quantum rotational excitation. The energy of a rotating system is $$E = (L^2) / 2 I $$ with L being the angular momentum and I the moment of Inertia. Then to make it quantum$$ n^2 * ħ^2$$ was substituted for## L^2 ##on top so it just becomes $$E rot = (n^2 * ħ^2) / 2 I $$ It was then stated that for a given mass, because the Moment of inertia grows with the radius squared, then the smaller a particle (such as an electron) then the larger the energy require to rotationally excite it. What I don't understand is why is " I " substituted to quantized energy in the numerator but left in the denominator? Then conceptually, how can a smaller radius of a particle require more energy to spin? This goes against the classical metaphor and confuses me. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Because in your equation the angular momentum is constant while the moment of inertia is decreasing. That means it must spin faster the smaller it is and your equation is telling you that to make it do that you must give it more energy.

Your intuition is running counter to that because it is assuming that a smaller object has less angular momentum (which is true classically for constant energy).

So you are holding two mutually contradictory ideas at once probably due to your intuition becoming confused between angular momentum and moment of inertia.

Incidentally, this highlights the problem with thinking of the spin of a point particle (such as an electron is usually thought of) as classical angular momentum. Because such a particle would have infinite energy. Rather to treat spin as classical angular momentum in your equation we must think of it as having a fixed moment of inertia and then the classical expression for moment of inertia breaks down. A more general way of thinking about it is that when discussing the properties of a quantum object at a space-time location, classical mechanics breaks down.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: quantumSpaghetti

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
768
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K