Why eigenvalues of L_x^2 and L_z^2 identical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fandango92
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eigenvalues
fandango92
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Calculate the eigenvalues of the L_x^2 matrix.
Calculate the eigenvalues of the L_z^2 matrix.
Compare these and comment on the result.

Homework Equations



L_x=\frac{1}{2}(L_+ + L_- )

The Attempt at a Solution



I have derived eigenvalues for each: 0 and \hbar^2 for both L_x^2 and L_z^2. But why are they identical? I'm finding it difficult in qualitatively explaining why the eigenvalues are the same for both.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because the God of Physics does not care which direction you call the x-direction and which direction you call the z-direction.
 
Sorry I forgot to mention this is for l=1.

Okay, but I used L_z eigenvalues of m\hbar, where m=-1,0,1 in this case, and used L_x=\frac{1}{2}(L_+ + L_- ). I have called the z component the one in which is certain, so how can the x component squared in this case have the same eigenvalues as the z component squared?
 
The operators will have the same eigenvalues for the reason Oxvillian said, but that's not saying anything about the state a particle is in. If a particle is in an eigenstate of ##\hat{L}_z##, it's not in an eigenstate of ##\hat{L}_x##.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top