What does it mean for spins to be anti-phase with each other?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter docnet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of anti-phase spins in quantum mechanics, specifically in the context of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Spins described by the product operators ##I_{1x}I_{2z}## are classified as anti-phase, while ##I_{1y}I_{2y}## are in-phase. The conversation explores the nature of coupling between spins, questioning whether it is a fundamental quantum mechanical property or can be reduced to principles like entanglement. The system in question involves a pair of directly bonded nuclei in a uniform magnetic field, with the Hamiltonian for J-coupling being a focal point of the discussion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of product operator formalism in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy
  • Knowledge of scalar coupling and exchange interaction
  • Basic principles of quantum mechanics, including spin and coupling constants
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Hamiltonian for J-coupling in NMR spectroscopy
  • Explore the implications of product operators in quantum mechanics
  • Study the relationship between spin coupling and entanglement
  • Investigate the mathematical modeling of spin dynamics in a uniform magnetic field
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, NMR spectroscopists, and students of quantum mechanics seeking to deepen their understanding of spin interactions and coupling phenomena.

docnet
Messages
796
Reaction score
486
TL;DR
please see below
A pair of spins described by the product operators ##I_{1x}I_{2z}## are said to be anti-phase, while ##I_{1y}I_{2y}## are in phase. What does it mean for a pair of spins to be anti-phase with each other, when their spatial vectors representing direction are orthogonal in space?

Under coupling conditions, a set of spins evolve from anti-phase to in-phase to anti-phase to in-phase. Is "coupling" between two spins a fundamental quantum mechanical property, or can it be reduced to another principle, like entanglement?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What concrete system/Hamiltonian are you talking about?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
vanhees71 said:
What concrete system/Hamiltonian are you talking about?
thanks for your reply. here is the description of the system and the hamiltonian for J-coupling. :)
Screen Shot 2021-03-21 at 10.59.19 AM.png
Screen Shot 2021-03-21 at 10.59.39 AM.png
Screen Shot 2021-03-21 at 11.00.09 AM.png
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
docnet said:
here is the description of the system and the hamiltonian for J-coupling

What reference is this from?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: docnet and vanhees71
Yes, I'd also need a bit more context. The terminology used in the above source is unfamiliar to me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: docnet
PeterDonis said:
What reference is this from?
It is from lectures by the Keeler group found here

copy-paste link: http://www-keeler.ch.cam.ac.uk/lectures/

vanhees71 said:
Yes, I'd also need a bit more context. The terminology used in the above source is unfamiliar to me.

The text uses the "product operator formalism" where ##I_x=M_x## refers to the expectation value of the ensemble average (ensemble here means set of identical spins) aka the bulk magnetic momentum. It is unconventional quantum mechanics notation and seems to confuse other students too.

The scalar coupling means two identical spins are interacting by a direct covalent bond. It could be related to the exchange interaction but I am not sure.
 
vanhees71 said:
What concrete system/Hamiltonian are you talking about?

So sorry, the system in question is a pair of directly bonded nuclei in a uniform magnetic field. It is from nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and it deals with the average expectation values. So the mathematics is based on deterministic, classical reasoning and only deals with rotations in 3D space. ##J_{12}## is the coupling constant, and ##t## is the time under evolution

I am not interested so much in a detailed analysis of the experiments, but interested in a theoretical principle that explains why the spin behaves this strangely under coupling conditions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
6K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K