Vector calculus: angular momentum operator in spherical coordinates

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the angular momentum operator in spherical coordinates, specifically the expression for \(\vec{L}\cdot\vec{L}\) and the challenges associated with deriving it from the vector operator \(\vec{L}\). Participants explore the implications of coordinate systems on the operator's evaluation, with a focus on the presence of the \(\cot \theta\) term and the complexities of using spherical coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the expression for the angular momentum operator \(\vec{L}\) and seeks a direct derivation of \(\vec{L}\cdot\vec{L}\) without following the complicated route found in references.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about the original question and suggest that the del operator is not explicitly defined in spherical coordinates, implying that a direct approach may not be feasible.
  • Another participant argues that the gradient operator is defined in spherical coordinates but mentions that it is singular along the polar axis, suggesting a return to Cartesian coordinates for evaluation might be simpler.
  • One participant provides a detailed derivation of \(\hat{\vec{L}}^2\) using Cartesian coordinates, indicating the complexity of the expression and the eventual transition to spherical coordinates.
  • Another participant questions whether it is possible to derive the expression without reverting to Cartesian coordinates, highlighting the challenges posed by non-Cartesian systems.
  • A later reply emphasizes the difficulties in working with vector fields in non-Cartesian coordinates, suggesting that deriving a scalar expression in Cartesian coordinates first is a more straightforward approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of deriving \(\vec{L}\cdot\vec{L}\) directly in spherical coordinates, with some advocating for a return to Cartesian coordinates while others question the necessity of this approach. No consensus is reached regarding the best method to evaluate the operator.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the definitions of operators in spherical coordinates and the singularities encountered along the polar axis. The discussion reflects the complexity of transitioning between coordinate systems in vector calculus.

MisterX
Messages
758
Reaction score
71
Note: physics conventions, \theta is measured from z-axis
We have a vector operator

\vec{L} = -i \vec{r} \times \vec{\nabla} = -i\left(\hat{\phi} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} - \hat{\theta} \frac{1}{\sin\theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \right)
And apparently
\vec{L}\cdot\vec{L}= -\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta^2} + \cot \theta\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}+ \frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \phi^2} \right)
I am wondering about a way to obtain the second expression (the \cot \theta term in particular) from the first expression without taking the circuitous route followed in my references. I realize the unit vectors aren't constant.
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}}} {\partial \phi} = \cos \theta\boldsymbol{\hat \phi}
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\hat{\phi}}} {\partial \theta} = 0

The basis vectors are orthonormal however, and for the norm-squared of a regular vector in spherical coordinates, we can just square each of the components and add.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
while I'm not quite sure what you're asking for (not a physicist), i can say the del operator is not explicitly defined in spherical coordinates. thus, if you are looking for a way to literally take \vec{L}\cdot \vec{L} perhaps the only way is the "circuitous" route from your references.

maybe this helps a little?
 
while I'm not quite sure what you're asking for (not a physicist), i can say the del operator is not explicitly defined in spherical coordinates. thus, if you are looking for a way to literally take \vec{L}\cdot \vec{L} perhaps the only way is the "circuitous" route from your references.

maybe this helps a little?
 
while I'm not quite sure what you're asking for (not a physicist), i can say the del operator is not explicitly defined in spherical coordinates. thus, if you are looking for a way to literally take \vec{L}\cdot \vec{L} perhaps the only way is the "circuitous" route from your references.

maybe this helps a little?
 
The gradient operator is defined in spherical coordinates (except along the polar axis, where spherical coordinates are singular).

To evaluate \hat{\vec{L}}^2, it's easier to go back to Cartesian coordinates first.
\hat{\vec{L}}^2 \psi =-\epsilon_{ijk}x_j \partial_k (\epsilon_{ilm} x_l \partial_m) \psi.
First we use the product rule and then to get
\epsilon_{ijk} \epsilon_{ilm}=\delta_{jl} \delta_{km}-\delta_{jm} \delta_{kl}
\hat{\vec{L}}^2 \psi =-(delta_{jl} \delta_{km}-\delta_{jm} \delta_{kl}) x_j (\delta_{kl} \partial_m+x_j x_l \partial_k \partial_m)=-(r^2 \Delta - 2 (\vec{x} \cdot \vec{\nabla}) \psi - x_j (\vec{x}\cdot \vec{\nabla}) \partial_j \psi).
The latter expression is not nice, but we can use
(\vec{x} \cdot \vec{\nabla})(\vec{x} \cdot \vec{\nabla})=x_j \partial_j (x_k \partial_k \psi) = (\vec{x} \cdot \vec{\nabla}) \psi + x_j (\vec{x} \cdot \vec{\nabla}) \partial_j \psi
to finally write
\hat{\vec{L}}^2 \psi = - (r^2 \Delta - (\vec{x} \cdot \vec{\nabla}) \psi - (\vec{x} \cdot \vec{\nabla})(\vec{x} \cdot \vec{\nabla}) \psi.
Now you use the Laplacian in spherical coordinates and
\vec{x} \cdot \vec{ \nabla} \psi = r \hat{r} \cdot \vec{\nabla} \psi = r \partial_r \psi
to finally get
\hat{\vec{L}}^2 \psi=-\frac{1}{\sin \vartheta} \left [\frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta} \left (\sin \vartheta \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \vartheta} \right ) + \frac{1}{\sin \vartheta}\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial \varphi^2} \right ].
 
vanhees71 said:
To evaluate \hat{\vec{L}}^2, it's easier to go back to Cartesian coordinates first.

I guess what I'm wondering is if there is a way without going back to Cartesian coordinates.
 
It's a bit tricky in non-Cartesian coordinates as soon as vector (or higher-rank tensor) fields are involved, and \hat{\vec{L}} \psi already is a vector field. That's why it is much simpler to first derive a scalar expression in Cartesian coordinates, which you already now how to express in spherical coordinates.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K