Why Does the Momentum Operator Yield Different Results in Rotations?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the momentum operator in quantum mechanics, specifically its application in the context of rotations as described in Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics." The original poster is exploring why a certain application of the momentum operator yields a specific result when acting on an eigenket.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the momentum operator to an eigenket and questions the resulting state. Other participants inquire about the reasoning behind an alternative expected result and discuss the implications of a backward rotation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some confirming the correctness of calculations while others are exploring the implications of rotation matrices. There is an ongoing examination of the operator's effects and the resulting states, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of a potential misunderstanding regarding the direction of rotation and the application of the rotation matrix. The original poster references a specific page in a textbook and a link to additional resources, indicating a reliance on established quantum mechanics principles.

Laura08
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello, sorry I am new to this forum, I hope I found the right category. I have a question about the momentum operator as in Sakurai's "modern quantum mechanics" on p. 196

If I let

[tex]1-\frac{i}{\hbar} d\phi L_{z} = 1-\frac{i}{\hbar} d\phi (xp_{y}-yp_{x})[/tex]

act on an eigenket [itex]| x,y,z \rangle[/itex]

why do I get [itex]| x-yd\phi,y+xd\phi,z \rangle[/itex]

and not [itex]| x+yd\phi,y-xd\phi,z \rangle[/itex] ,

with the momentum operators

[tex]p_{x}=\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x} , p_{y}=\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}[/tex]

Thanks for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
can you show us why you think that would yeild:

[itex]| x+yd\phi,y-xd\phi,z \rangle[/itex]

?
 
I just use the operator on each component:

[tex][1-\frac{i}{\hbar} d\phi (xp_{y}-yp_{x})] | x,y,z \rangle =[/tex]

[tex][1-d\phi (x \frac{\partial}{\partial y}-y \frac{\partial}{\partial x})] | x,y,z \rangle =[/tex]

[tex]|x-d\phi (x \frac{\partial x}{\partial y}-y \frac{\partial x}{\partial x}),y-d\phi (x \frac{\partial y}{\partial y}-y \frac{\partial y}{\partial x}),z-d\phi (x \frac{\partial z}{\partial y}-y \frac{\partial z}{\partial x}) \rangle =[/tex]

[tex]|x-d\phi (0-y),y-d\phi (x-0),z-d\phi (0-0) \rangle =[/tex]

[tex]| x+yd\phi,y-xd\phi,z \rangle[/tex]
 
Isn't that the correct answer?
 
Well, I think the calculation is correct, but then I did a backwards rotation, which I didn't intend to do.
The rotation matrix for an infinitesimal rotation about the z-axis is (if I rotate the vector, not the system)

[tex] R_{z}(d\phi) = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}<br /> 1 & -d\phi & 0\\<br /> d\phi & 1 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right), R_{z}(d\phi)^{-1} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}<br /> 1 & d\phi & 0\\<br /> -d\phi & 1 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)[/tex]

So [tex]| x+yd\phi,y-xd\phi,z \rangle[/tex] = [tex]R_{z}(d\phi)^{-1}| x,y,z \rangle[/tex]

Yet if you try to determine the quantum mechanical operator for an infinitesimal rotation around the z-axis, starting with

[tex]\hat{R}| x,y,z \rangle = | x-yd\phi,y+xd\phi,z \rangle[/tex]

(as done e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_operator" , you find

[tex]\hat{R} = 1-\frac{i}{\hbar} d\phi L_{z}[/tex]

And then inserting this result for [itex]\hat{R}[/itex] leads me back to my problem...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K