I Why is m_j not a good quantum number in strong-field Zeeman effect?

Happiness
Messages
686
Reaction score
30
TL;DR Summary
When solving for the correction to the Hamiltonian due to strong-field Zeeman effect (using perturbation theory), why is m_j not a "good" quantum number, given that J_z is conserved too?
This textbook claims ##m_j## is not a "good" quantum number because the total angular momentum (of an electron of a hydrogen atom placed in a strong uniform magnetic field) is not conserved. I don't understand why ##m_j## is not a "good" quantum number.

Screenshot 2024-07-07 at 4.40.30 AM.png


Since ##J=L+S##, ##J_z=L_z+S_z##.
Since ##L_z## and ##S_z## are both conserved, so is ##J_z##.
##J_z## commutes with ##H'_Z## too.
So shouldn't ##m_j## be a "good" quantum number too?

The phrase "good quantum number" relates to the following theorem in perturbation theory:

Screenshot 2024-07-07 at 4.41.34 AM.png

Screenshot 2024-07-07 at 4.41.46 AM.png


The book is "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics", 2nd edition, by David Griffiths.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Happiness said:
Since ##L_z## and ##S_z## are both conserved, so is ##J_z##.
But ##J## is not, and ##m_j## is a quantum number for ##J##, not ##J_z##.
 
PeterDonis said:
But ##J## is not, and ##m_j## is a quantum number for ##J##, not ##J_z##.

This is the remaining part of the section in the book:
Screenshot 2024-07-07 at 6.46.45 AM.png


From the sentence below [6.81], we can see that eigenstates of ##S_z## and ##L_z## were used as the "good" states ##\ket{nlm_lm_s}## in the perturbation theory in [6.80].

So my question is, aren't eigenstates of ##J_z## "good" states too?

The book did not define quantum numbers explicitly. From what I understand from the book, since ##m_j## is the eigenvalue of operator ##J_z##, ie, ##J_z\psi=\hbar m_j\psi## (where ##\psi## is an eigenstate of ##J_z##), then ##m_j## is the quantum number for ##J_z##. This is how I understand it. (##m_j## is the eigenvalue apart from a factor of ##\hbar##.)
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top