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##.)
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
Back
Top