Understanding Spin-Orbit Coupling in Quantum Mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding spin-orbit coupling in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the perturbation Hamiltonian and the calculation of expectation values in different quantum states. Participants explore the mathematical intricacies involved in expressing states and calculating energy shifts, with an emphasis on the roles of angular momentum and eigenstates.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant discusses the perturbation Hamiltonian and expresses confusion about the mathematical steps involving the expression of states as linear combinations of eigenkets.
  • Another participant suggests using Clebsch-Gordan coefficients to simplify the addition of angular momentum, indicating that this might avoid unnecessary complications.
  • There is a proposal that the expectation value of the perturbation Hamiltonian should be calculated using a specific form of states, leading to a complex expression that includes multiple terms.
  • Some participants note that the state used for the expectation value calculation may not be an eigenstate of the total angular momentum operator, which complicates the application of perturbation theory.
  • Discussion arises around the implications of degeneracy in perturbation theory and the necessity of using a different set of states that diagonalize the perturbation Hamiltonian.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the eigenstate properties of the states involved, particularly that the state |n, l, ml, s, ms> is not an eigenstate of J^2 but is an eigenstate of Jz.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the states used in calculations, particularly regarding whether |n, l, ml, s, ms> can be considered an eigenstate of J^2. There is no consensus on the best approach to resolve the mathematical complications presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the understanding of how to properly apply perturbation theory in the context of spin-orbit coupling, particularly concerning the choice of states and the implications of degeneracy.

fayled
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
So we obtain the perturbation Hamiltonian H as something proportional to S.L/r3 and the first order energy shift is then the expectation value of this perturbation Hamiltonian in the state that is being perturbed.

So let a general gross structure state that we are perturbing be |n l ml s ms >. Finding the expectation of 1/r3 is fine using this state. However we must recast the other part as S.L=(J2-L2-S2)/2. This is where I'm losing what's going on with the maths and books don't tend to bother explaining it. So the state I have chosen is not an eigenket of J2. What I believe is happening is that we express the above state as a linear combination of eigenkets of the form |n j mj l, s> using the techniques of addition of angular momentum (because then we have it in terms of eigenkets of the squared operators which makes life easier). However this doesn't give the correct answer because the linear combination gives multiple terms whereas there should only be one.

Can anybody see where I have made a mathematical error? Thank you :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fayled said:
This is where I'm losing what's going on with the maths and books don't tend to bother explaining it.
Consider the fact that ##\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{L} + \mathbf{S}##, if you calculate the scalar product ##|\mathbf{J}|^2##, what do you get in the right hand side?
fayled said:
What I believe is happening is that we express the above state as a linear combination of eigenkets of the form |n j mj l, s> using the techniques of addition of angular momentum
Yes, that's the right direction. You don't have to go through all the trouble of using the addition of angular momenta theorem if you use table of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.
fayled said:
However this doesn't give the correct answer because the linear combination gives multiple terms whereas there should only be one.
May be it will help if you post your calculation.
 
Last edited:
blue_leaf77 said:
Consider the fact that ##\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{L} + \mathbf{S}##, if you calculate the scalar product ##|\mathbf{J}|^2##, what do you get in the right hand side?

Yes, that's the right direction. You don't have to go through all the trouble of using the addition of angular momenta theorem if you use table of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.

May be it will help if you post your calculation.

So what books seem to use is that (for dimensionless angular momentum operators)
<n l ml s ms|S.L|n l ml s ms>∝<n l ml s ms|J2-S2-L2|n l ml s ms>=j(j+1)-l(l+1)-s(s+1).

However my idea is that we should be writing
|n l ml s ms> as an expansion in the states |n j mj l s> which gives something of the form |n l ml s ms>=a1|n j=l+s mj=ml+ms l s>+a2|n j=l+s-1 mj=ml+ms l s>+... as we can expand in states between j=l+s and j=l-s. Now doing the expectation value gives
<n l ml s ms|S.L|n l ml s ms>∝(a1*<n j=l+s mj=ml+ms l s|+a2*<n j=l+s-1 mj=ml+ms l s|+...)(J2-S2-L2)(a1|n j=l+s mj=ml+ms l s>+a2|n j=l+s-1 mj=ml+ms l s>+...).

Now this gives a massive mess - we get j(j+1)-l(l+1)-s(s+1) but this has to be summed over all the possible kets in the expectation value, i.e
|a1|2[(l+s)(l+s+1)-l(l+1)-s(s+1)]+|a2|2[(l+s-1)(l+s)-l(l+1)-s(s+1)]+...
 
fayled said:
<n l ml s ms|S.L|n l ml s ms>∝<n l ml s ms|J2-S2-L2|n l ml s ms>=j(j+1)-l(l+1)-s(s+1).
If the right most expression is what is written in your book, then it must be implying that the state for which the expectation value was calculated is already the |n j mj l s> state.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
If the right most expression is what is written in your book, then it must be implying that the state for which the expectation value was calculated is already the |n j mj l s> state.

Yes it seems to, but that doesn't make sense because we are perturbing the gross structure states which are the set of |n l ml s ms>, so these should be the states used to calculate the expectation value. I've seen degenerate perturbation theory mentioned in a few places but I can't quite see how it would fit in here.
 
fayled said:
Yes it seems to, but that doesn't make sense because we are perturbing the gross structure states which are the set of |n l ml s ms>, so these should be the states used to calculate the expectation value. I've seen degenerate perturbation theory mentioned in a few places but I can't quite see how it would fit in here.
What is required in the perturbation theory to be the zeroth-order wavefunction is that it must be eigenstate of the unperturbed Hamiltonian, in this sense the ##|n,l,m_l,m_s\rangle## obviously complies with that requirement. But this set of states does not diagonalize the perturbation Hamiltonian, which is proportional to ##\mathbf{L}\cdot \mathbf{S}##, moreover it is degenerate (one energy eigenvalue is shared by multiple different states). Degeneracy poses problem in perturbation theory because of the diverging value of some series in the derivation, the way to get around this (read the appropriate chapter in your textbook) is to use another set of states in which the perturbation is diagonal, yet at the same time is still eigenstate of the unperturbed Hamiltonian. In the current problem such a state is the ##|n,j,m_j,l,s\rangle##, for a given values of the quantum number contained in the ket there, it is a superposition of ##|n,l,m_l,m_s\rangle## states of different ##m_l## and ##m_s## but constant ##n##, ##l##, and ##s##, which means it is indeed eigenfunction of the unperturbed Hamiltonian. So, the expectation value of the perturbation should be computed in this new set of states.
 
DrClaude said:
so ##| n, l, m_l, s, m_s \rangle## is already an eigenstate of ##\mathbf{J}^2## (and ##J_z## also).
The state ##| n, l, m_l, s, m_s \rangle## is a superposition of ##| n, j, m_j, l,s\rangle## with different ##j##'s and ##m_j##'s, so I don't think we can say that ##| n, l, m_l, s, m_s \rangle## is an eigenstate of ##\mathbf{J}^2## and its ##z## component.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
The state ##| n, l, m_l, s, m_s \rangle## is a superposition of ##| n, j, m_j, l,s\rangle## with different ##j##'s and ##m_j##'s, so I don't think we can say that ##| n, l, m_l, s, m_s \rangle## is an eigenstate of ##\mathbf{J}^2## and its ##z## component.
Don't know what I was thinking. It is obviously not an eigenstate of J2. But it is an eigenstate of Jz, with ##m_j = m_l + m_s## (the triangle rule applies).
 
Ah yes, it's eigenstate of ##J_z## but not of ##J^2##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
8K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K