Sakurai page 196: Orbital angular momentum as rotation generator

Click For Summary
In the discussion of Sakurai's page 196, participants analyze the implications of equations (3.6.4) and (3.6.5) regarding orbital angular momentum and its role as a rotation generator. The focus is on the order of operations applied to the position eigenket |x', y', z'⟩, specifically questioning why position operators are applied before momentum operators. Clarification is provided that, despite the apparent order, the commutation relations indicate that the sequence does not affect the outcome. The conversation highlights the interplay between position and momentum in quantum mechanics, emphasizing the importance of understanding operator actions. Overall, the discussion deepens the understanding of angular momentum in quantum mechanics.
omoplata
Messages
327
Reaction score
2
From "Modern Quantum Mechanics, revised edition" by J.J. Sakurai, page 196.

Equation (3.6.4),<br /> 1-i \left( \frac{\delta \phi}{\hbar} \right) L_z = 1 - i \left( \frac{\delta \phi}{\hbar} \right) (x p_y - y p_x )<br />Making this act on an arbitrary position eigenket \mid x&#039;, y&#039;, z&#039; \rangle,
Equation (3.6.5),<br /> \begin{eqnarray}<br /> \left[ 1-i \left( \frac{\delta \phi}{\hbar} \right) L_z \right] \mid x&#039;, y&#039;, z&#039; \rangle &amp; = &amp; \left[ 1 - i \left( \frac{p_y}{\hbar} \right) ( \delta \phi x&#039; ) + i \left( \frac{p_x}{\hbar} \right) ( \delta \phi y&#039; ) \right] \mid x&#039;, y&#039;, z&#039; \rangle \\<br /> &amp; = &amp; \mid x&#039; - y&#039; \delta \phi, y&#039; + x \delta \phi, z&#039; \rangle<br /> \end{eqnarray}<br />
What I don't understand is, in equation (3.6.5), why did they operate by the position operators first, and not the momentum operators. Looking at equation (3.6.4), it looks like the ket \mid x&#039;, y&#039;, z&#039; \rangle should be operated on by the momentum operators first.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It wouldn't matter, since [\hat p_{x},\hat y]=[\hat p_{y},\hat x]=0. Remember [\hat p_{i},\hat x_{j}]=i\hbar \delta_{ij}?
 
Oh, OK. Got it. Thanks.
 
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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
928
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
842
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
972
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
5K