A $S^+$ and $S^{-}$ operators formula

  • Thread starter Thread starter LagrangeEuler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Operators
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the factors in the formulas for the spin raising and lowering operators, ##\hat{S}^+## and ##\hat{S}^-##, in quantum mechanics. It explains that these operators act on the state ##|S,m \rangle##, where ##S## is the total spin and ##m## is the spin projection. The factors ##\sqrt{S(S+1) - m(m+1)}\hbar## and ##\sqrt{S(S+1) - m(m-1)}\hbar## arise from the relationships between the operators and the eigenstates of the spin operator ##S_z##. The discussion also highlights that the maximum value of ##m##, denoted as ##m_{\text{max}}##, leads to the conclusion that ##S^2 = m_{\text{max}}(m_{\text{max}} + 1)##, confirming the structure of the spin operators. This derivation is a fundamental aspect of understanding angular momentum in quantum mechanics.
LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22
For ##\hat{S}^+## and ##\hat{S}^{-}## operators for any given spin ##S## relation
\hat{S}^+|S,m \rangle=\sqrt{S(S+1)-m(m+1)}\hbar|S,m+1 \rangle
\hat{S}^-|S,m \rangle=\sqrt{S(S+1)-m(m-1)}\hbar|S,m-1 \rangle
Can someone please explain how we get those factors ##\sqrt{S(S+1)-m(m+1)}\hbar## and ##\sqrt{S(S+1)-m(m-1)}\hbar##?
In ##|S,m \rangle## ##S## denotes spin, and ##m## spin projection.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I thought someone would already have answered this. For people who like algebra, it's one of those fun things to derive in quantum mechanics.

Let me list some facts about these operators
  1. ##S^{+} = S_x + i S_y##
  2. ##S^{-} = S_x - i S_y##
  3. ##S^2 = S_x^2 + S_y^2 + S_z^2##
  4. ##S_x S_y - S_y S_x = i S_z##
  5. ##S_z S^{+} = S^{+} (S_z + 1)##
  6. ##S_z S^{-} = S^{-} (S_z - 1)##
  7. ##S^{-} S^{+} = S^2 - S_z(S_z + 1)##
  8. ##(S^{+})^\dagger = S^{-}##
(The last 4 are provable from the first 4).

So if we let ##|m\rangle## be the state with ##S_z |m \rangle = m | m \rangle##,
then ##S_z S^- |m\rangle = S^- (S_z - 1) |m\rangle = S^- (m - 1) |m\rangle = (m-1) S^- |m\rangle##. So ##S^-|m\rangle## is an eigenstate of ##S_z## with eigenvalue ##m-1##. That means (assuming nondegeneracy of eigenvalues---I'm going to skip the argument for why this is the case, because I'm not sure why) that ##S^- |m\rangle## must be a multiple of ##|m-1\rangle##. So let's let ##\alpha_m## be the multiplier:

##S^- |m\rangle = \alpha_m |m-1\rangle##

Analogously, we can show that ##S^+ |m\rangle## has to be an eigenstate of ##S_z## with eigenvalue ##m+1##. So

##S^+ |m\rangle = \beta_m |m+1\rangle##

where ##\beta_m## is some unknown multiplier. We can relate ##\alpha_m## and ##\beta_m## by considering

##\langle m| S^- S^+ |m \rangle##

By our assumptions about ##S^+## and ##S^{-}##, we get:

##\langle m| S^- S^+ |m \rangle = \langle m| (S^+ \beta_m |m+1\rangle) = \langle m |\alpha_{m+1} \beta_m |m\rangle = \alpha_{m+1} \beta_m##. But we also know that ##\langle m| S^- S^+ |m \rangle = (S^+ |m\rangle)^\dagger (S^+ |m\rangle) = \langle m | \beta_m^* \beta_m |m \rangle##. So this proves that

##\beta_m^* = \alpha_{m+1}##

Now on the one hand:

##S^- S^+ |m\rangle = S^- \beta_m |m+1\rangle = \alpha_{m+1} \beta_m |m\rangle = |\beta_m|^2 |m \rangle##

On the other hand, by equation 7 above,

##S^- S^+ |m\rangle = (S^2 - S_z(S_z+1)) |m\rangle = (S^2 - m(m+1)) |m\rangle##

So we conclude that ##\beta_m = \sqrt{S^2 - m(m+1)}##.

But what are the eigenvalues of ##S^2##? Well, since ##S^2## must be greater than or equal to ##S_z^2##, we know that we can't keep raising the value of ##S_z## forever. But since ##S^+ |m\rangle = \beta_m |m+1\rangle##, the only way to prevent raising ##m## indefinitely is if for some maximal value of ##m##,

##S^+ |m_{\text{max}}\rangle = 0##

That implies that ##\beta_{m_{\text{max}}} = 0##.

So since we know an expression for ##\beta_m##,

##\sqrt{S^2 - m_{\text{max}}(m_{\text{max}}+1)} = 0##

That implies that ##S^2 = m_{\text{max}}(m_{\text{max}}+1)##

Rewriting ##m_{\text{max}} \equiv s## gives:
##S^2 =s (s+1)##

and ##\beta_m = \sqrt{s(s+1) - m(m+1)}##
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes vanhees71, LagrangeEuler, PeroK and 2 others
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
792
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
877
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K