What operators are involved in angular momentum states?

leonmate
Messages
81
Reaction score
1
Hoping this is in the right section! The module is nuclear and atomic physics but it crosses over into quantum occasionally.

I've attached an image of the bit I'm trying to work out.

I've got an exam on this topic in just over a week, so sorry if these posts get annoying, I have a feeling I'm going to posting a few.. Physics is infuriating when you get stuck and can't find where to look for solutions!

The issue I have right now is I'm looking at a number of these operators acting on states like the one below and while I know a few operators: position, momentum, hamiltonian etc I keep getting these odd ones thrown at me and I don't know how to work these through... What's written on the sheet, am I supposed to just accept that's a result or is there a relatively simple way of working it through (if I can work it through I tend to understand and remember it more!)

Thanks,
Leon
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-08-03 at 13.27.35.png
    Screen Shot 2015-08-03 at 13.27.35.png
    14.3 KB · Views: 422
Physics news on Phys.org
leonmate said:
I don't know how to work these through
From this statement, I can tell you haven't read enough material from your lecture notes or textbook.
leonmate said:
is there a relatively simple way of working it through
It's a relatively simple matter to work with 1 particle angular momentum operators, but of course only after you get sufficient knowledge on it. So, trying to explain the whole thing from the beginning is the same as retyping the existing chapter in your textbook. I suggest Quantum Mechanics by Griffith or Modern Quantum Mechanics by Sakurai, or eventually the textbook your lecturer is using.
 
Ok, fair enough, I'm finding this a really tough subject

Perhaps my lecture notes aren't great, ill try one of those textbooks

thanks
 
Ok, found a handy website with an article that's explained this well:

http://www.physicspages.com/2011/07/20/angular-momentum-eigenvalues/

I was curious about this statement:

'We can assume that the eigenvalue of
latex.png
for
latex.png
is
latex.png
for some number
latex.png
. That is, for this eigenfunction' (above eq 19)

Why is it that we can assume this? I get that we have quantized states - is that why? so we can have hbar, 2hbar, 3hbar etc.
Also, is this the just the case for angular momentum or is it more than that?
 
Last edited:
##L_z## is an angular momentum operator, since ##\hbar## has the same unit as angular momentum, it makes sense saying that any eigenvalue of ##L_z## be a multiple of ##\hbar##. However at this point, nothing is specified about ##l##, it can be any real number. Later it will be proven that ##l## must be integer.
 
If you find it difficult to work with bras and kets to get your result, you can as well work with normal wavefunctions and the angular momentum operator written in the position representation...with the Y being your eigenfunctions and calculating Lz, L^2 (eg in spherical coordinates). o0)
If I recall well the difference is that with the brackets you will reach to half-integer angular momenta too, while with the one I'm proposing you won't...
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top