Understanding Spin States of Particles with Spin-1 and Spin-1/2

Solarmew
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Ok, so for some reason this section of the GRE book makes 0 sense to me ... maybe because i haven't taken the class yet, maybe I'm missing something ...
It says "If you have a spin-1 particle with m = +1 and a spin-1/2 particle with m = +1/2, then m_tot = +3/2 (this part makes sense, you just add them), and the system must be in the state with s_tot = 3/2"

why is s_tot just 3/2? I thought the possible spin states of the system are s1+s2, s1-s2, and everything in-between in intervals of 1, so 3/2 and 1/2 ...
i don't get it ... it even says here "We can get any spin between |s-s'| and s+s'. "

and the next part says "On the other hand, if the spin-1/2 particle had m=-1/2, then m_tot = +1/2 and either s_tot = 3/2, or s_tot = 1/2 are allowed"

so i guess 1-(-1/2)=3/2, 1+(-1/2) = 1/2
but isn't the first part also 1-1/2=1/2, 1+1/2 = 3/2
?

so confused :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Watch out - remember that in general the spin must satisfy $$s_{tot} \geq m.$$

So you can have m = 1/2 and s = 3/2 or 1/2, but the m = 3/2, s = 1/2 violates the rule above. Recall that m is like a component of the vector with magnitude s, and a single component of a vector is always smaller than the magnitude.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
king vitamin said:
Watch out - remember that in general the spin must satisfy $$s_{tot} \geq m.$$

So you can have m = 1/2 and s = 3/2 or 1/2, but the m = 3/2, s = 1/2 violates the rule above. Recall that m is like a component of the vector with magnitude s, and a single component of a vector is always smaller than the magnitude.

oooooh, geez, I wish the book would've stated that explicitly = -______- =
thank you!
 
how about this one?

"A meson is a bound state of a quark and an antiquark, both with spin 1/2. Which of the following is a possible value of total angular momentum j for a meson with orbital angular momentum l=2?"

I've got the formula J=L+S. And I guess we can add or subtract the spins for a total s=0,1. But then it says:
"Adding l=2 to s=0 gives only j=2, and adding l=2 to s=1 gives j=3,2,1"
How did they get the 3,2,1?
 
Hmm, I think you should consider getting a book or finding some online notes about this if it's mostly new to you.

The key is to understand that S, L and J are magnitudes of vectors related by

$$ \vec{S} + \vec{L} = \vec{J} $$

Now think about vector addition. It's completely possible to add two vectors with magnitude S=1 and L=2 to get the magnitude of J to be 3; the two vectors S and L must be parallel. Correspondingly, it's possible to add the two vectors to get 1; the vectors must simply be antiparallel. Finally, by playing with angles, you can make the magnitude of J be any number between 1 and 3.

But then there's quantum mechanics. Angular momentum must be quantized according to a set of rules, and in the above case, only the intermediate value J=2 is allowed. If you aren't familiar with the rules, it'll be easy to get stumped on some of these problems. In this case, the rule is that J must take the quantized values |L-S|, |L-S|+1, |L-S|+2, ..., L+S.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top