Zeemen Effet - having trouble understanding

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rabbit44
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Zeeman effect, specifically the perturbation Hamiltonian derived as h = (eB/2m)(Lz + 2Sz) for the quantum states characterized by the quantum numbers |n, j, l, m>. The confusion arises from the non-commutation of J^2 with the perturbed Hamiltonian, leading to eigenstates that lack well-defined j values. The resolution involves understanding that the new eigenstates are linear superpositions of the original states, which were previously degenerate but now correspond to distinct energy levels.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics, specifically quantum states and operators.
  • Familiarity with the Zeeman effect and its implications in quantum systems.
  • Knowledge of perturbation theory in quantum mechanics.
  • Basic grasp of angular momentum operators, including J^2 and Lz.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of quantum perturbation theory in detail.
  • Learn about angular momentum in quantum mechanics, focusing on the implications of non-commuting operators.
  • Explore the mathematical formulation of the Zeeman effect and its applications in spectroscopy.
  • Investigate linear superposition in quantum mechanics and its role in determining new eigenstates.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in quantum mechanics, physicists studying atomic interactions, and anyone interested in the applications of the Zeeman effect in spectroscopy and quantum theory.

rabbit44
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Please help!

OK so when we looked at the Zeeman effect, we used the states

|n, j, l, m>

where these are the quantum numbers associated with H, J^2, L^2 and Jz respectively.

We derived the perturbation Hamiltonian as

h = (eB/2m)(Lz + 2Sz)

Then you can work out the energy shifts for, the state with n=2, j=1/2 and l=0.

BUT what confuses me is that J^2 doesn't commute with the peturbed Hamiltonian. So the eigenstates of the peturbed Hamiltonian do not have well-defined j. But as we know all the possible values of m of the peturbed states (as they are the same as the possible values of the unpeturbed states), doesn't that imply a value of j=m(max)?

I'm not putting this across well but I can't think how else to describe the difficulty I'm having.

Thanks for reading and hopefully replying!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Uh, I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but the eigenstates change as well (for the ones which the energies have changed).

So, you will get a linear superposition of your previous states as your new eigenstates.

For example, if you have |a> and |b> which were degenerate and then they split off into 2 non-degenerate energies, Ea and Eb, then you have new eigenstates corresponding which will be some superposition of |a> and |b>.

I don't know if that's what you're asking though...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K