Can particles with identical spin have the same spin projection onto an axis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tomkeus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spin
tomkeus
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
I'm preparing my QM exam (problem part) and I have stumbled upon one I can't quite "digest" properly. It goes like this

Two particles with spin s=1 are given and in total state |S=2,M=1>. What is probability that by simultaneous measurement of both particle's spin projections onto some axis we obtain same result?

Back on exercise classes few years ago TA gave some ridiculoulsy large solution I'm reading now and I don't understand it completely. I thought of next. Problem's question is equivalent to next (I hope): What is probability that by measuring difference between particle's spin projections onto some axis we obtain zero as a result? We first set up spin difference operator\hat{s}_{diff}=\hat{s}_1\otimes\hat{I}_2-\hat{I}_1\otimes\hat{s}_2 (it has propper eigenvaules s_1-s_2 and gives orthogonal decomposition of total state space so I guess it is spin difference operator). Probability asked for is v=<2,1|\hat{P}_0|2,1>, where \hat{P}_0 projects to spin difference operator's subspace of eigenvalue 0. Now I represent it in noncorrelated basis |s_1,m_1>\otimes|s_2,m_2>. Since both particles have same spin, they will be represented by same matrices in this basis. As a consequence, spin difference operator will be zero (in any basis) and accordingly, I suppose, all projectors in it's subspaces will be zero. Hence probability is zero (this is same result TA got). Now, this reasoning would hold for any particles of identical spin.

Q1: Is my solution OK?

Q2: Does this mean that it is actually impossible for two particles of identical spin to have same spin projections onto some axis?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Still no reply? Well anyway...

First: What worries me is that no one noticed I made a mistake (or someone noticed and decided not to post). Spin projection difference operator is not zero (contribution of nonocommutativity of Kronecker product). I will try to get around this.

Second: Q2 still remains
 
Doesn't this belong in the "homework" category?
 
Of course the answer to Q2 is "no", Bose statistics allow as many as you like in the same spin state.

By the way, I'm sort of surprised this didn't get sent over to the homework section.

Carl
 
S=2 implies 5 total angular momentum states. Count how many can have the same m or sz components, and you have a good start. My guess is that with careful counting you can avoid Clebsch-Gordon coefficients or a Gram-Schmidt procedure.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top