Mixing
Mistake in “Quantum Mechanics” by Auletta, Fortunato and Parisi?
$begingroup$
On page 200 of Auletta, Fortunato and Parisi's textbook on Quantum Mechanics they write:
begin{equation}
hat{mathbf{l}}^2|l, m_lrangle=l(l+1)|l, m_lrangle tag{6.31}
end{equation}
This is a peculiarity of quantum mechanics, in that the eigenvalue of the square of $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is not the square of the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$. As we see from Eq. (6.27), it is a direct consequence of the fact that the angular momentum's components (in particular $hat{l}_x$ and $hat{l}_y$) do not commute with each other. Indeed, if they did commute, the last term in brackets in Eq. (6.28) would vanish and the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$ would be equal to $l^2$.
Here $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is the operator corresponding to the magnitude of angular momentum and $l$ its maximal eigenvalue of $hat{l}_z$. I have read through the section carefully and they seem to be confusing the quantum number $l$ with the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$, which is $sqrt{l(l+1)}$.
The statement that the eigenvalues of an operator $A^2$ are not the square of the eigenvalues of $A$ seems like complete nonsense to me. Clearly if $$A psi = lambda psi$$ Then $$A^2 psi = lambda^2 psi$$ from the simple fact that operators commute with scalar multiplication.
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum textbook-erratum
edited Feb 3 at 23:01
Alex Shpilkin
791722
asked Feb 2 at 18:27
UtilityMaximiserUtilityMaximiser
1879
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
On page 200 of Auletta, Fortunato and Parisi's textbook on Quantum Mechanics they write:
begin{equation}
hat{mathbf{l}}^2|l, m_lrangle=l(l+1)|l, m_lrangle tag{6.31}
end{equation}
This is a peculiarity of quantum mechanics, in that the eigenvalue of the square of $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is not the square of the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$. As we see from Eq. (6.27), it is a direct consequence of the fact that the angular momentum's components (in particular $hat{l}_x$ and $hat{l}_y$) do not commute with each other. Indeed, if they did commute, the last term in brackets in Eq. (6.28) would vanish and the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$ would be equal to $l^2$.
Here $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is the operator corresponding to the magnitude of angular momentum and $l$ its maximal eigenvalue of $hat{l}_z$. I have read through the section carefully and they seem to be confusing the quantum number $l$ with the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$, which is $sqrt{l(l+1)}$.
The statement that the eigenvalues of an operator $A^2$ are not the square of the eigenvalues of $A$ seems like complete nonsense to me. Clearly if $$A psi = lambda psi$$ Then $$A^2 psi = lambda^2 psi$$ from the simple fact that operators commute with scalar multiplication.
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum textbook-erratum
edited Feb 3 at 23:01
Alex Shpilkin
791722
asked Feb 2 at 18:27
UtilityMaximiserUtilityMaximiser
1879
$endgroup$
9
$begingroup$
The paragraph is very misleading: there is no such thing as the eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$, since its components cannot be simultaneously diagonalized.
$endgroup$
– Javier
Feb 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
I interpreted it as meaning the magnitude, because otherwise as you say it makes no sense
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 2 at 19:18
2
$begingroup$
They are absolutely right: The are looking at the eigenvalues of $hat l _x ^2 + hat l _y ^2 +hat l _z ^2 $ and you are misreading the text if you suspect they are confusing $l$ with eigenvalues of a vector operator. Often, in very advanced q-group texts, one writes expressions such as $| hat{vec l} |=sqrt{l(l+1)}$, but don't worry about such here.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 2 at 19:46
$begingroup$
Cosmas, what do you think "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" means if not the magnitude?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:01
$begingroup$
l is a vector; when its components commute with each other, its eigenvalue is the vector of the eigenvalues of each component; this is simply not a remote possibility here, given the aggressive noncommutativity of the components, so the authors warn you to not go there, which you may well appear anxious to do.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 15:06
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
On page 200 of Auletta, Fortunato and Parisi's textbook on Quantum Mechanics they write:
begin{equation}
hat{mathbf{l}}^2|l, m_lrangle=l(l+1)|l, m_lrangle tag{6.31}
end{equation}
This is a peculiarity of quantum mechanics, in that the eigenvalue of the square of $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is not the square of the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$. As we see from Eq. (6.27), it is a direct consequence of the fact that the angular momentum's components (in particular $hat{l}_x$ and $hat{l}_y$) do not commute with each other. Indeed, if they did commute, the last term in brackets in Eq. (6.28) would vanish and the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$ would be equal to $l^2$.
Here $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is the operator corresponding to the magnitude of angular momentum and $l$ its maximal eigenvalue of $hat{l}_z$. I have read through the section carefully and they seem to be confusing the quantum number $l$ with the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$, which is $sqrt{l(l+1)}$.
The statement that the eigenvalues of an operator $A^2$ are not the square of the eigenvalues of $A$ seems like complete nonsense to me. Clearly if $$A psi = lambda psi$$ Then $$A^2 psi = lambda^2 psi$$ from the simple fact that operators commute with scalar multiplication.
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum textbook-erratum
edited Feb 3 at 23:01
Alex Shpilkin
791722
asked Feb 2 at 18:27
UtilityMaximiserUtilityMaximiser
1879
$endgroup$
On page 200 of Auletta, Fortunato and Parisi's textbook on Quantum Mechanics they write:
begin{equation}
hat{mathbf{l}}^2|l, m_lrangle=l(l+1)|l, m_lrangle tag{6.31}
end{equation}
This is a peculiarity of quantum mechanics, in that the eigenvalue of the square of $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is not the square of the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$. As we see from Eq. (6.27), it is a direct consequence of the fact that the angular momentum's components (in particular $hat{l}_x$ and $hat{l}_y$) do not commute with each other. Indeed, if they did commute, the last term in brackets in Eq. (6.28) would vanish and the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$ would be equal to $l^2$.
Here $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is the operator corresponding to the magnitude of angular momentum and $l$ its maximal eigenvalue of $hat{l}_z$. I have read through the section carefully and they seem to be confusing the quantum number $l$ with the eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf{l}}$, which is $sqrt{l(l+1)}$.
The statement that the eigenvalues of an operator $A^2$ are not the square of the eigenvalues of $A$ seems like complete nonsense to me. Clearly if $$A psi = lambda psi$$ Then $$A^2 psi = lambda^2 psi$$ from the simple fact that operators commute with scalar multiplication.
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum textbook-erratum
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum textbook-erratum
edited Feb 3 at 23:01
Alex Shpilkin
791722
asked Feb 2 at 18:27
UtilityMaximiserUtilityMaximiser
1879
edited Feb 3 at 23:01
Alex Shpilkin
791722
asked Feb 2 at 18:27
UtilityMaximiserUtilityMaximiser
1879
edited Feb 3 at 23:01
Alex Shpilkin
791722
edited Feb 3 at 23:01
Alex Shpilkin
791722
edited Feb 3 at 23:01
Alex Shpilkin
791722
791722
asked Feb 2 at 18:27
UtilityMaximiserUtilityMaximiser
1879
asked Feb 2 at 18:27
UtilityMaximiserUtilityMaximiser
1879
asked Feb 2 at 18:27
UtilityMaximiserUtilityMaximiser
1879
1879
9
$begingroup$
The paragraph is very misleading: there is no such thing as the eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$, since its components cannot be simultaneously diagonalized.
$endgroup$
– Javier
Feb 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
I interpreted it as meaning the magnitude, because otherwise as you say it makes no sense
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 2 at 19:18
2
$begingroup$
They are absolutely right: The are looking at the eigenvalues of $hat l _x ^2 + hat l _y ^2 +hat l _z ^2 $ and you are misreading the text if you suspect they are confusing $l$ with eigenvalues of a vector operator. Often, in very advanced q-group texts, one writes expressions such as $| hat{vec l} |=sqrt{l(l+1)}$, but don't worry about such here.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 2 at 19:46
$begingroup$
Cosmas, what do you think "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" means if not the magnitude?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:01
$begingroup$
l is a vector; when its components commute with each other, its eigenvalue is the vector of the eigenvalues of each component; this is simply not a remote possibility here, given the aggressive noncommutativity of the components, so the authors warn you to not go there, which you may well appear anxious to do.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 15:06
|
show 3 more comments
9
$begingroup$
The paragraph is very misleading: there is no such thing as the eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$, since its components cannot be simultaneously diagonalized.
$endgroup$
– Javier
Feb 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
I interpreted it as meaning the magnitude, because otherwise as you say it makes no sense
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 2 at 19:18
2
$begingroup$
They are absolutely right: The are looking at the eigenvalues of $hat l _x ^2 + hat l _y ^2 +hat l _z ^2 $ and you are misreading the text if you suspect they are confusing $l$ with eigenvalues of a vector operator. Often, in very advanced q-group texts, one writes expressions such as $| hat{vec l} |=sqrt{l(l+1)}$, but don't worry about such here.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 2 at 19:46
$begingroup$
Cosmas, what do you think "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" means if not the magnitude?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:01
$begingroup$
l is a vector; when its components commute with each other, its eigenvalue is the vector of the eigenvalues of each component; this is simply not a remote possibility here, given the aggressive noncommutativity of the components, so the authors warn you to not go there, which you may well appear anxious to do.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 15:06
9
9
$begingroup$
The paragraph is very misleading: there is no such thing as the eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$, since its components cannot be simultaneously diagonalized.
$endgroup$
– Javier
Feb 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
The paragraph is very misleading: there is no such thing as the eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$, since its components cannot be simultaneously diagonalized.
$endgroup$
– Javier
Feb 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
I interpreted it as meaning the magnitude, because otherwise as you say it makes no sense
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 2 at 19:18
$begingroup$
I interpreted it as meaning the magnitude, because otherwise as you say it makes no sense
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 2 at 19:18
2
2
$begingroup$
They are absolutely right: The are looking at the eigenvalues of $hat l _x ^2 + hat l _y ^2 +hat l _z ^2 $ and you are misreading the text if you suspect they are confusing $l$ with eigenvalues of a vector operator. Often, in very advanced q-group texts, one writes expressions such as $| hat{vec l} |=sqrt{l(l+1)}$, but don't worry about such here.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 2 at 19:46
$begingroup$
They are absolutely right: The are looking at the eigenvalues of $hat l _x ^2 + hat l _y ^2 +hat l _z ^2 $ and you are misreading the text if you suspect they are confusing $l$ with eigenvalues of a vector operator. Often, in very advanced q-group texts, one writes expressions such as $| hat{vec l} |=sqrt{l(l+1)}$, but don't worry about such here.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 2 at 19:46
$begingroup$
Cosmas, what do you think "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" means if not the magnitude?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:01
$begingroup$
Cosmas, what do you think "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" means if not the magnitude?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:01
$begingroup$
l is a vector; when its components commute with each other, its eigenvalue is the vector of the eigenvalues of each component; this is simply not a remote possibility here, given the aggressive noncommutativity of the components, so the authors warn you to not go there, which you may well appear anxious to do.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 15:06
$begingroup$
l is a vector; when its components commute with each other, its eigenvalue is the vector of the eigenvalues of each component; this is simply not a remote possibility here, given the aggressive noncommutativity of the components, so the authors warn you to not go there, which you may well appear anxious to do.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 15:06
|
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
$hat{mathbf{l}}$ is a 3-component vector operator and as such its "square" is not the same as it being applied twice.
answered Feb 2 at 18:58
hyportnexhyportnex
4,6651824
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
And what do you interpret "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" as meaning?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:04
1
$begingroup$
the vector operator $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is really a collection of three conventional operators, one corresponding to each coordinate axis, as such it has no corresponding vector eigenvalue unless the component operators commute and you already know that these component operators do not commute.
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 14:30
$begingroup$
@UtilityMaximiser Nothing. There’s no such thing as an “eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf l}$”. There is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $sqrt{widehat{mathbf l^2}}$, but it does not appear in your quote (nor is it particularly important).
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:57
$begingroup$
Okay so if you agree there is no such thing then you agree the textbook contains a mistake.
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
Yes, at best it is misleading, at worst it is wrong; well, nobody is perfect...
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 17:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Writing $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is a bit of an abuse of notation but conventional since $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is actually the sum of squares of operators:
$$
hat{textbf{l}}^2:=hat{textbf{l}}_x^2+hat{textbf{l}}_y^2+hat{textbf{l}}_z^2, .
$$
Of course if $hat{textbf{l}}_xpsi=mpsi$ then
$hat{textbf{l}}_x^2psi=m^2psi$.
The notation is meant to reflect the fact that
$vec Lcdotvec L=L^2=L_x^2+L_y^2+L_z^2$ is the length squared of the angular momentum vector
$vec L=hat x L_x+hat yL_y+hat zhat L_z$.
The "operator" $hat{textbf{l}}$ doesn't make a lot of of sense, although
$hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n$ is often used to denote the operator
$$
hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n=hat{textbf{l}}_x sinthetacosphi
+ hat{textbf{l}}_y sinthetasinphi
+hat{textbf{l}}_z costheta
$$
when the quantization axis is chosen to lie in the $hat n$ direction.
answered Feb 2 at 20:04
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
21.3k53364
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, no, it’s not an abuse of notation if you write $mathbf v^2 := v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2$ for the squared length of a c-vector $mathbf v$, which is rather common. Sometimes even the scalar product of $mathbf u$ and $mathbf v$ is written $mathbf umathbf v$ (e.g. in Landau & Lifschitz), but this is less often used.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 13:38
1
$begingroup$
@AlexShpilkin as pointed out $hat{mathbf{l}}$ doesn’t make sense as an operator, so it’s square isn’t defined by acting twice with the operator.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Feb 3 at 14:10
2
$begingroup$
Yeah, sorry. The abuse might be to write $hat{mathbf l}^2$ instead of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (the quantization of the classical $mathbf l^2$). “The square of $mathbf l$” might make sense, but it’s a bit tricky to define, and “an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$” does not make sense at all, of course. I’ll write this down in an answer in a moment.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mistake in the textbook is the claim that there is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$. There isn’t.
What do we have at hand?
Three operators $hat l_x, hat l_y, hat l_z :mathcal Htomathcal H$ that take vectors in the Hilbert space $mathcal H$ of the system and return vectors in the same space. These are the quantum counterparts (“quantizations”) of the classical observables $l_x$, $l_y$, $l_z$, but they do not commute and therefore do not have a common eigenbasis.
For a vector $left|psirightrangleinmathcal H$ in the eigenbasis of a single one of those operators (say $hat l_z$), the corresponding eigenvalue $lambda$. By a common abuse of notation, this eigenvalue is also denoted $l_zequivlambda$, and the eigenvector, $left|l_zrightrangleequivleft|psirightrangle$, leading to the funny-looking equation $hat l_zleft|l_zrightrangle = l_zleft|l_zrightrangle$. I repeat that for such a vector, $hat l_xleft|l_zrightrangle =muleft|l_zrightrangle$ does not hold for any scalar $mu$, and similarly for $hat l_y$.
For the whole state space $mathcal H$ (or its subspace, see below), the largest among the possible eigenvalues of $hat l_z$. By yet another abuse of notation, this is usually denoted $l$.
The operator $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (note the positioning of the hat), i.e. the quantum counterpart of the classical observable $mathbf l^2equiv l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2$ (note that the $l_z$ here is not the same thing as in the previous two bullet points). Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$), we also have that $widehat{mathbf l^2} = widehat{(l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2)}$ is equal to $hat l_x^2 +hat l_y^2 +hat l_z^2 + O(hbar^2),$.
What would, then, be the correct formulation of the statement of the book? As follows: the eigenvalues of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ are of form $l(l+1)$ for integral or half-integral $l$. Also, if we take an eigenspace of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $l(l+1)$ (it will in general be more than one-dimensional), then $hat l_z$ would map it into itself, so we can discuss the eigenvalues of $hat l_z$ restricted to that subspace. The maximum such eigenvalue will turn out to be $l$.
This is surprising, because in the classical case (or, equivalently but more confusingly, in an alternative world where $hat l_x$, $hat l_y$, and $hat l_z$ commuted) the maximum value of the observable $l_z$ among states with a fixed value of $mathbf l^2$ (call it $lambda$) would be $l = sqrt{lambda}$ (that’s a different $l$!), i.e. $lambda = l^2$. Not so in the quantum case.
That was the required part. However, if you want to recover your $hat{mathbf l}^2$, read on...
So far there is no operator $hat{mathbf l}$ that would allow us to define the operator $hat{mathbf l}^2 := bigl(hat{mathbf l}bigr)^2$. Can such an operator be defined? Yes, but it is a bit tricky: it acts bybegin{align*}
mathcal Hhphantom{rangle} &{}tomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3\[.5em]
left|psirightrangle &{}mapstomathbf lleft|psirightrangleequiv
pmatrix{
l_xleft|psirightrangle \
l_yleft|psirightrangle \
l_zleft|psirightrangle
},
end{align*}
that is, it returns a block vector composed of the component operators; the space of such vectors is called $mathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, the “tensor product” of $mathcal H$ and $mathbf R^3$ (you’ll encounter it in the discussion of composite system, although this particular use of it is unrelated to them). Because it is not an operator from a vector space to itself, it does not even make sense to speak of its eigenvectors or eigenvalues.
We still haven’t defined anything worthy of the name $hat{mathbf l}^2$, let alone shown it were equal to $widehat{mathbf l^2}$. It can’t be the usual square of an operator, because that definition would require $hat{mathbf l}$ to map $mathcal H$ to itself, and it does not.
The idea is that if we have two operators $hat{mathbf A}, hat{mathbf B} : mathcal Htomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, we can compose their “$mathcal H$ parts” while taking the scalar product of their “$mathbf R^3$ parts”. This is, of course, fancy language for what you would’ve written anyway: $hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B} :=hat A_xhat B_x +hat A_yhat B_y +hat A_zhat B_z$ (note that it does map $mathcal H$ to itself). This definition, indeed, somethimes used in both physics and mathematics. In the particular case of quantum observables, we also have $widehat{mathbf Amathbf B} =hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B}$ (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$) provided that the corresponding $hat A_i$ and $hat B_i$ commute (in particular, if they are equal to each other, $hat{mathbf A} =hat{mathbf B} =hat{mathbf l}$), but not otherwise.
answered Feb 3 at 14:42
Alex ShpilkinAlex Shpilkin
791722
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(Somehow I never realized before that this was, indeed, $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf R}mathbf R^3$ and not $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf C}mathbf C^3$...)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 15:12
1
$begingroup$
Totally tangential remark, irrelevant to the question and answer, regarding your "Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers, we also have that ..." Not quite! Not only are the expressions following that not equal (they differ by 3$hbar^2$/2, accounting, e.g., for the peculiar non-vanishing angular momentum of the lowest Bohr orbit) but the difference might vary with quantization prescription, since the square of the angular momentum is quartic in phase-space variables.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 16:08
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Wait, what? You mean the quantization of $mathbf l^2$ is (not $0$ but) $3hbar^2/2$ in the s state? Whoops. Tangential or not, it’s a false statement; thanks! Now if only I understood why =/ (Although I did indeed look at all the nice squares and totally missed that $hat{mathbf l}^2$ was in fact quartic and so not safe from prescription-dependent corrections... And neither are powers unless they’re powers of $alphahat x +betahat p$ or something like that dependening on the prescription. Guess I’ll go fix this now.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 20:31
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Huh. Indeed, Weyl gives $hat l_z^2 = widehat{l_z^2} -hbar^2/2$. Makes me wonder how I’ve never seen that before. Thanks again!
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 21:23
$begingroup$
It's all described an a concise treatise ... book of ours. Mind you, this is in the Weyl prescription. In the Husimi ordering prescription the story is much darker. So, the expectation value of $hat{ lcdot l}$ in the s-state of hydrogen is 3$hbar^2$/2 in Weyl's prescription, even though the expectation value of the conventional $widehat l cdot hat l$ vanishes. The paradox was why the ground state of the Bohr atom does not have l=0....
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 21:32
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f458490%2fmistake-in-quantum-mechanics-by-auletta-fortunato-and-parisi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
$hat{mathbf{l}}$ is a 3-component vector operator and as such its "square" is not the same as it being applied twice.
answered Feb 2 at 18:58
hyportnexhyportnex
4,6651824
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
And what do you interpret "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" as meaning?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:04
1
$begingroup$
the vector operator $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is really a collection of three conventional operators, one corresponding to each coordinate axis, as such it has no corresponding vector eigenvalue unless the component operators commute and you already know that these component operators do not commute.
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 14:30
$begingroup$
@UtilityMaximiser Nothing. There’s no such thing as an “eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf l}$”. There is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $sqrt{widehat{mathbf l^2}}$, but it does not appear in your quote (nor is it particularly important).
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:57
$begingroup$
Okay so if you agree there is no such thing then you agree the textbook contains a mistake.
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
Yes, at best it is misleading, at worst it is wrong; well, nobody is perfect...
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 17:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$hat{mathbf{l}}$ is a 3-component vector operator and as such its "square" is not the same as it being applied twice.
answered Feb 2 at 18:58
hyportnexhyportnex
4,6651824
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
And what do you interpret "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" as meaning?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:04
1
$begingroup$
the vector operator $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is really a collection of three conventional operators, one corresponding to each coordinate axis, as such it has no corresponding vector eigenvalue unless the component operators commute and you already know that these component operators do not commute.
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 14:30
$begingroup$
@UtilityMaximiser Nothing. There’s no such thing as an “eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf l}$”. There is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $sqrt{widehat{mathbf l^2}}$, but it does not appear in your quote (nor is it particularly important).
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:57
$begingroup$
Okay so if you agree there is no such thing then you agree the textbook contains a mistake.
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
Yes, at best it is misleading, at worst it is wrong; well, nobody is perfect...
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 17:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$hat{mathbf{l}}$ is a 3-component vector operator and as such its "square" is not the same as it being applied twice.
answered Feb 2 at 18:58
hyportnexhyportnex
4,6651824
$endgroup$
$hat{mathbf{l}}$ is a 3-component vector operator and as such its "square" is not the same as it being applied twice.
answered Feb 2 at 18:58
hyportnexhyportnex
4,6651824
answered Feb 2 at 18:58
hyportnexhyportnex
4,6651824
answered Feb 2 at 18:58
hyportnexhyportnex
4,6651824
answered Feb 2 at 18:58
hyportnexhyportnex
4,6651824
4,6651824
$begingroup$
And what do you interpret "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" as meaning?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:04
1
$begingroup$
the vector operator $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is really a collection of three conventional operators, one corresponding to each coordinate axis, as such it has no corresponding vector eigenvalue unless the component operators commute and you already know that these component operators do not commute.
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 14:30
$begingroup$
@UtilityMaximiser Nothing. There’s no such thing as an “eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf l}$”. There is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $sqrt{widehat{mathbf l^2}}$, but it does not appear in your quote (nor is it particularly important).
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:57
$begingroup$
Okay so if you agree there is no such thing then you agree the textbook contains a mistake.
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
Yes, at best it is misleading, at worst it is wrong; well, nobody is perfect...
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 17:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
And what do you interpret "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" as meaning?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:04
1
$begingroup$
the vector operator $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is really a collection of three conventional operators, one corresponding to each coordinate axis, as such it has no corresponding vector eigenvalue unless the component operators commute and you already know that these component operators do not commute.
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 14:30
$begingroup$
@UtilityMaximiser Nothing. There’s no such thing as an “eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf l}$”. There is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $sqrt{widehat{mathbf l^2}}$, but it does not appear in your quote (nor is it particularly important).
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:57
$begingroup$
Okay so if you agree there is no such thing then you agree the textbook contains a mistake.
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
Yes, at best it is misleading, at worst it is wrong; well, nobody is perfect...
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 17:07
$begingroup$
And what do you interpret "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" as meaning?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:04
$begingroup$
And what do you interpret "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" as meaning?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:04
1
1
$begingroup$
the vector operator $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is really a collection of three conventional operators, one corresponding to each coordinate axis, as such it has no corresponding vector eigenvalue unless the component operators commute and you already know that these component operators do not commute.
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 14:30
$begingroup$
the vector operator $hat{mathbf{l}}$ is really a collection of three conventional operators, one corresponding to each coordinate axis, as such it has no corresponding vector eigenvalue unless the component operators commute and you already know that these component operators do not commute.
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 14:30
$begingroup$
@UtilityMaximiser Nothing. There’s no such thing as an “eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf l}$”. There is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $sqrt{widehat{mathbf l^2}}$, but it does not appear in your quote (nor is it particularly important).
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@UtilityMaximiser Nothing. There’s no such thing as an “eigenvalue of $hat{mathbf l}$”. There is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $sqrt{widehat{mathbf l^2}}$, but it does not appear in your quote (nor is it particularly important).
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:57
$begingroup$
Okay so if you agree there is no such thing then you agree the textbook contains a mistake.
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 17:02
$begingroup$
Okay so if you agree there is no such thing then you agree the textbook contains a mistake.
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 17:02
1
1
$begingroup$
Yes, at best it is misleading, at worst it is wrong; well, nobody is perfect...
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 17:07
$begingroup$
Yes, at best it is misleading, at worst it is wrong; well, nobody is perfect...
$endgroup$
– hyportnex
Feb 3 at 17:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Writing $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is a bit of an abuse of notation but conventional since $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is actually the sum of squares of operators:
$$
hat{textbf{l}}^2:=hat{textbf{l}}_x^2+hat{textbf{l}}_y^2+hat{textbf{l}}_z^2, .
$$
Of course if $hat{textbf{l}}_xpsi=mpsi$ then
$hat{textbf{l}}_x^2psi=m^2psi$.
The notation is meant to reflect the fact that
$vec Lcdotvec L=L^2=L_x^2+L_y^2+L_z^2$ is the length squared of the angular momentum vector
$vec L=hat x L_x+hat yL_y+hat zhat L_z$.
The "operator" $hat{textbf{l}}$ doesn't make a lot of of sense, although
$hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n$ is often used to denote the operator
$$
hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n=hat{textbf{l}}_x sinthetacosphi
+ hat{textbf{l}}_y sinthetasinphi
+hat{textbf{l}}_z costheta
$$
when the quantization axis is chosen to lie in the $hat n$ direction.
answered Feb 2 at 20:04
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
21.3k53364
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, no, it’s not an abuse of notation if you write $mathbf v^2 := v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2$ for the squared length of a c-vector $mathbf v$, which is rather common. Sometimes even the scalar product of $mathbf u$ and $mathbf v$ is written $mathbf umathbf v$ (e.g. in Landau & Lifschitz), but this is less often used.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 13:38
1
$begingroup$
@AlexShpilkin as pointed out $hat{mathbf{l}}$ doesn’t make sense as an operator, so it’s square isn’t defined by acting twice with the operator.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Feb 3 at 14:10
2
$begingroup$
Yeah, sorry. The abuse might be to write $hat{mathbf l}^2$ instead of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (the quantization of the classical $mathbf l^2$). “The square of $mathbf l$” might make sense, but it’s a bit tricky to define, and “an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$” does not make sense at all, of course. I’ll write this down in an answer in a moment.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Writing $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is a bit of an abuse of notation but conventional since $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is actually the sum of squares of operators:
$$
hat{textbf{l}}^2:=hat{textbf{l}}_x^2+hat{textbf{l}}_y^2+hat{textbf{l}}_z^2, .
$$
Of course if $hat{textbf{l}}_xpsi=mpsi$ then
$hat{textbf{l}}_x^2psi=m^2psi$.
The notation is meant to reflect the fact that
$vec Lcdotvec L=L^2=L_x^2+L_y^2+L_z^2$ is the length squared of the angular momentum vector
$vec L=hat x L_x+hat yL_y+hat zhat L_z$.
The "operator" $hat{textbf{l}}$ doesn't make a lot of of sense, although
$hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n$ is often used to denote the operator
$$
hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n=hat{textbf{l}}_x sinthetacosphi
+ hat{textbf{l}}_y sinthetasinphi
+hat{textbf{l}}_z costheta
$$
when the quantization axis is chosen to lie in the $hat n$ direction.
answered Feb 2 at 20:04
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
21.3k53364
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, no, it’s not an abuse of notation if you write $mathbf v^2 := v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2$ for the squared length of a c-vector $mathbf v$, which is rather common. Sometimes even the scalar product of $mathbf u$ and $mathbf v$ is written $mathbf umathbf v$ (e.g. in Landau & Lifschitz), but this is less often used.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 13:38
1
$begingroup$
@AlexShpilkin as pointed out $hat{mathbf{l}}$ doesn’t make sense as an operator, so it’s square isn’t defined by acting twice with the operator.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Feb 3 at 14:10
2
$begingroup$
Yeah, sorry. The abuse might be to write $hat{mathbf l}^2$ instead of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (the quantization of the classical $mathbf l^2$). “The square of $mathbf l$” might make sense, but it’s a bit tricky to define, and “an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$” does not make sense at all, of course. I’ll write this down in an answer in a moment.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Writing $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is a bit of an abuse of notation but conventional since $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is actually the sum of squares of operators:
$$
hat{textbf{l}}^2:=hat{textbf{l}}_x^2+hat{textbf{l}}_y^2+hat{textbf{l}}_z^2, .
$$
Of course if $hat{textbf{l}}_xpsi=mpsi$ then
$hat{textbf{l}}_x^2psi=m^2psi$.
The notation is meant to reflect the fact that
$vec Lcdotvec L=L^2=L_x^2+L_y^2+L_z^2$ is the length squared of the angular momentum vector
$vec L=hat x L_x+hat yL_y+hat zhat L_z$.
The "operator" $hat{textbf{l}}$ doesn't make a lot of of sense, although
$hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n$ is often used to denote the operator
$$
hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n=hat{textbf{l}}_x sinthetacosphi
+ hat{textbf{l}}_y sinthetasinphi
+hat{textbf{l}}_z costheta
$$
when the quantization axis is chosen to lie in the $hat n$ direction.
answered Feb 2 at 20:04
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
21.3k53364
$endgroup$
Writing $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is a bit of an abuse of notation but conventional since $hat{textbf{l}}^2$ is actually the sum of squares of operators:
$$
hat{textbf{l}}^2:=hat{textbf{l}}_x^2+hat{textbf{l}}_y^2+hat{textbf{l}}_z^2, .
$$
Of course if $hat{textbf{l}}_xpsi=mpsi$ then
$hat{textbf{l}}_x^2psi=m^2psi$.
The notation is meant to reflect the fact that
$vec Lcdotvec L=L^2=L_x^2+L_y^2+L_z^2$ is the length squared of the angular momentum vector
$vec L=hat x L_x+hat yL_y+hat zhat L_z$.
The "operator" $hat{textbf{l}}$ doesn't make a lot of of sense, although
$hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n$ is often used to denote the operator
$$
hat{textbf{l}}cdot hat n=hat{textbf{l}}_x sinthetacosphi
+ hat{textbf{l}}_y sinthetasinphi
+hat{textbf{l}}_z costheta
$$
when the quantization axis is chosen to lie in the $hat n$ direction.
answered Feb 2 at 20:04
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
21.3k53364
answered Feb 2 at 20:04
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
21.3k53364
answered Feb 2 at 20:04
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
21.3k53364
answered Feb 2 at 20:04
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
21.3k53364
21.3k53364
$begingroup$
Well, no, it’s not an abuse of notation if you write $mathbf v^2 := v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2$ for the squared length of a c-vector $mathbf v$, which is rather common. Sometimes even the scalar product of $mathbf u$ and $mathbf v$ is written $mathbf umathbf v$ (e.g. in Landau & Lifschitz), but this is less often used.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 13:38
1
$begingroup$
@AlexShpilkin as pointed out $hat{mathbf{l}}$ doesn’t make sense as an operator, so it’s square isn’t defined by acting twice with the operator.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Feb 3 at 14:10
2
$begingroup$
Yeah, sorry. The abuse might be to write $hat{mathbf l}^2$ instead of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (the quantization of the classical $mathbf l^2$). “The square of $mathbf l$” might make sense, but it’s a bit tricky to define, and “an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$” does not make sense at all, of course. I’ll write this down in an answer in a moment.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well, no, it’s not an abuse of notation if you write $mathbf v^2 := v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2$ for the squared length of a c-vector $mathbf v$, which is rather common. Sometimes even the scalar product of $mathbf u$ and $mathbf v$ is written $mathbf umathbf v$ (e.g. in Landau & Lifschitz), but this is less often used.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 13:38
1
$begingroup$
@AlexShpilkin as pointed out $hat{mathbf{l}}$ doesn’t make sense as an operator, so it’s square isn’t defined by acting twice with the operator.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Feb 3 at 14:10
2
$begingroup$
Yeah, sorry. The abuse might be to write $hat{mathbf l}^2$ instead of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (the quantization of the classical $mathbf l^2$). “The square of $mathbf l$” might make sense, but it’s a bit tricky to define, and “an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$” does not make sense at all, of course. I’ll write this down in an answer in a moment.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:16
$begingroup$
Well, no, it’s not an abuse of notation if you write $mathbf v^2 := v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2$ for the squared length of a c-vector $mathbf v$, which is rather common. Sometimes even the scalar product of $mathbf u$ and $mathbf v$ is written $mathbf umathbf v$ (e.g. in Landau & Lifschitz), but this is less often used.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 13:38
$begingroup$
Well, no, it’s not an abuse of notation if you write $mathbf v^2 := v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2$ for the squared length of a c-vector $mathbf v$, which is rather common. Sometimes even the scalar product of $mathbf u$ and $mathbf v$ is written $mathbf umathbf v$ (e.g. in Landau & Lifschitz), but this is less often used.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 13:38
1
1
$begingroup$
@AlexShpilkin as pointed out $hat{mathbf{l}}$ doesn’t make sense as an operator, so it’s square isn’t defined by acting twice with the operator.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Feb 3 at 14:10
$begingroup$
@AlexShpilkin as pointed out $hat{mathbf{l}}$ doesn’t make sense as an operator, so it’s square isn’t defined by acting twice with the operator.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Feb 3 at 14:10
2
2
$begingroup$
Yeah, sorry. The abuse might be to write $hat{mathbf l}^2$ instead of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (the quantization of the classical $mathbf l^2$). “The square of $mathbf l$” might make sense, but it’s a bit tricky to define, and “an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$” does not make sense at all, of course. I’ll write this down in an answer in a moment.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:16
$begingroup$
Yeah, sorry. The abuse might be to write $hat{mathbf l}^2$ instead of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (the quantization of the classical $mathbf l^2$). “The square of $mathbf l$” might make sense, but it’s a bit tricky to define, and “an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$” does not make sense at all, of course. I’ll write this down in an answer in a moment.
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 14:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mistake in the textbook is the claim that there is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$. There isn’t.
What do we have at hand?
Three operators $hat l_x, hat l_y, hat l_z :mathcal Htomathcal H$ that take vectors in the Hilbert space $mathcal H$ of the system and return vectors in the same space. These are the quantum counterparts (“quantizations”) of the classical observables $l_x$, $l_y$, $l_z$, but they do not commute and therefore do not have a common eigenbasis.
For a vector $left|psirightrangleinmathcal H$ in the eigenbasis of a single one of those operators (say $hat l_z$), the corresponding eigenvalue $lambda$. By a common abuse of notation, this eigenvalue is also denoted $l_zequivlambda$, and the eigenvector, $left|l_zrightrangleequivleft|psirightrangle$, leading to the funny-looking equation $hat l_zleft|l_zrightrangle = l_zleft|l_zrightrangle$. I repeat that for such a vector, $hat l_xleft|l_zrightrangle =muleft|l_zrightrangle$ does not hold for any scalar $mu$, and similarly for $hat l_y$.
For the whole state space $mathcal H$ (or its subspace, see below), the largest among the possible eigenvalues of $hat l_z$. By yet another abuse of notation, this is usually denoted $l$.
The operator $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (note the positioning of the hat), i.e. the quantum counterpart of the classical observable $mathbf l^2equiv l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2$ (note that the $l_z$ here is not the same thing as in the previous two bullet points). Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$), we also have that $widehat{mathbf l^2} = widehat{(l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2)}$ is equal to $hat l_x^2 +hat l_y^2 +hat l_z^2 + O(hbar^2),$.
What would, then, be the correct formulation of the statement of the book? As follows: the eigenvalues of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ are of form $l(l+1)$ for integral or half-integral $l$. Also, if we take an eigenspace of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $l(l+1)$ (it will in general be more than one-dimensional), then $hat l_z$ would map it into itself, so we can discuss the eigenvalues of $hat l_z$ restricted to that subspace. The maximum such eigenvalue will turn out to be $l$.
This is surprising, because in the classical case (or, equivalently but more confusingly, in an alternative world where $hat l_x$, $hat l_y$, and $hat l_z$ commuted) the maximum value of the observable $l_z$ among states with a fixed value of $mathbf l^2$ (call it $lambda$) would be $l = sqrt{lambda}$ (that’s a different $l$!), i.e. $lambda = l^2$. Not so in the quantum case.
That was the required part. However, if you want to recover your $hat{mathbf l}^2$, read on...
So far there is no operator $hat{mathbf l}$ that would allow us to define the operator $hat{mathbf l}^2 := bigl(hat{mathbf l}bigr)^2$. Can such an operator be defined? Yes, but it is a bit tricky: it acts bybegin{align*}
mathcal Hhphantom{rangle} &{}tomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3\[.5em]
left|psirightrangle &{}mapstomathbf lleft|psirightrangleequiv
pmatrix{
l_xleft|psirightrangle \
l_yleft|psirightrangle \
l_zleft|psirightrangle
},
end{align*}
that is, it returns a block vector composed of the component operators; the space of such vectors is called $mathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, the “tensor product” of $mathcal H$ and $mathbf R^3$ (you’ll encounter it in the discussion of composite system, although this particular use of it is unrelated to them). Because it is not an operator from a vector space to itself, it does not even make sense to speak of its eigenvectors or eigenvalues.
We still haven’t defined anything worthy of the name $hat{mathbf l}^2$, let alone shown it were equal to $widehat{mathbf l^2}$. It can’t be the usual square of an operator, because that definition would require $hat{mathbf l}$ to map $mathcal H$ to itself, and it does not.
The idea is that if we have two operators $hat{mathbf A}, hat{mathbf B} : mathcal Htomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, we can compose their “$mathcal H$ parts” while taking the scalar product of their “$mathbf R^3$ parts”. This is, of course, fancy language for what you would’ve written anyway: $hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B} :=hat A_xhat B_x +hat A_yhat B_y +hat A_zhat B_z$ (note that it does map $mathcal H$ to itself). This definition, indeed, somethimes used in both physics and mathematics. In the particular case of quantum observables, we also have $widehat{mathbf Amathbf B} =hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B}$ (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$) provided that the corresponding $hat A_i$ and $hat B_i$ commute (in particular, if they are equal to each other, $hat{mathbf A} =hat{mathbf B} =hat{mathbf l}$), but not otherwise.
answered Feb 3 at 14:42
Alex ShpilkinAlex Shpilkin
791722
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(Somehow I never realized before that this was, indeed, $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf R}mathbf R^3$ and not $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf C}mathbf C^3$...)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 15:12
1
$begingroup$
Totally tangential remark, irrelevant to the question and answer, regarding your "Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers, we also have that ..." Not quite! Not only are the expressions following that not equal (they differ by 3$hbar^2$/2, accounting, e.g., for the peculiar non-vanishing angular momentum of the lowest Bohr orbit) but the difference might vary with quantization prescription, since the square of the angular momentum is quartic in phase-space variables.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 16:08
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Wait, what? You mean the quantization of $mathbf l^2$ is (not $0$ but) $3hbar^2/2$ in the s state? Whoops. Tangential or not, it’s a false statement; thanks! Now if only I understood why =/ (Although I did indeed look at all the nice squares and totally missed that $hat{mathbf l}^2$ was in fact quartic and so not safe from prescription-dependent corrections... And neither are powers unless they’re powers of $alphahat x +betahat p$ or something like that dependening on the prescription. Guess I’ll go fix this now.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 20:31
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Huh. Indeed, Weyl gives $hat l_z^2 = widehat{l_z^2} -hbar^2/2$. Makes me wonder how I’ve never seen that before. Thanks again!
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 21:23
$begingroup$
It's all described an a concise treatise ... book of ours. Mind you, this is in the Weyl prescription. In the Husimi ordering prescription the story is much darker. So, the expectation value of $hat{ lcdot l}$ in the s-state of hydrogen is 3$hbar^2$/2 in Weyl's prescription, even though the expectation value of the conventional $widehat l cdot hat l$ vanishes. The paradox was why the ground state of the Bohr atom does not have l=0....
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 21:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mistake in the textbook is the claim that there is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$. There isn’t.
What do we have at hand?
Three operators $hat l_x, hat l_y, hat l_z :mathcal Htomathcal H$ that take vectors in the Hilbert space $mathcal H$ of the system and return vectors in the same space. These are the quantum counterparts (“quantizations”) of the classical observables $l_x$, $l_y$, $l_z$, but they do not commute and therefore do not have a common eigenbasis.
For a vector $left|psirightrangleinmathcal H$ in the eigenbasis of a single one of those operators (say $hat l_z$), the corresponding eigenvalue $lambda$. By a common abuse of notation, this eigenvalue is also denoted $l_zequivlambda$, and the eigenvector, $left|l_zrightrangleequivleft|psirightrangle$, leading to the funny-looking equation $hat l_zleft|l_zrightrangle = l_zleft|l_zrightrangle$. I repeat that for such a vector, $hat l_xleft|l_zrightrangle =muleft|l_zrightrangle$ does not hold for any scalar $mu$, and similarly for $hat l_y$.
For the whole state space $mathcal H$ (or its subspace, see below), the largest among the possible eigenvalues of $hat l_z$. By yet another abuse of notation, this is usually denoted $l$.
The operator $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (note the positioning of the hat), i.e. the quantum counterpart of the classical observable $mathbf l^2equiv l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2$ (note that the $l_z$ here is not the same thing as in the previous two bullet points). Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$), we also have that $widehat{mathbf l^2} = widehat{(l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2)}$ is equal to $hat l_x^2 +hat l_y^2 +hat l_z^2 + O(hbar^2),$.
What would, then, be the correct formulation of the statement of the book? As follows: the eigenvalues of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ are of form $l(l+1)$ for integral or half-integral $l$. Also, if we take an eigenspace of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $l(l+1)$ (it will in general be more than one-dimensional), then $hat l_z$ would map it into itself, so we can discuss the eigenvalues of $hat l_z$ restricted to that subspace. The maximum such eigenvalue will turn out to be $l$.
This is surprising, because in the classical case (or, equivalently but more confusingly, in an alternative world where $hat l_x$, $hat l_y$, and $hat l_z$ commuted) the maximum value of the observable $l_z$ among states with a fixed value of $mathbf l^2$ (call it $lambda$) would be $l = sqrt{lambda}$ (that’s a different $l$!), i.e. $lambda = l^2$. Not so in the quantum case.
That was the required part. However, if you want to recover your $hat{mathbf l}^2$, read on...
So far there is no operator $hat{mathbf l}$ that would allow us to define the operator $hat{mathbf l}^2 := bigl(hat{mathbf l}bigr)^2$. Can such an operator be defined? Yes, but it is a bit tricky: it acts bybegin{align*}
mathcal Hhphantom{rangle} &{}tomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3\[.5em]
left|psirightrangle &{}mapstomathbf lleft|psirightrangleequiv
pmatrix{
l_xleft|psirightrangle \
l_yleft|psirightrangle \
l_zleft|psirightrangle
},
end{align*}
that is, it returns a block vector composed of the component operators; the space of such vectors is called $mathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, the “tensor product” of $mathcal H$ and $mathbf R^3$ (you’ll encounter it in the discussion of composite system, although this particular use of it is unrelated to them). Because it is not an operator from a vector space to itself, it does not even make sense to speak of its eigenvectors or eigenvalues.
We still haven’t defined anything worthy of the name $hat{mathbf l}^2$, let alone shown it were equal to $widehat{mathbf l^2}$. It can’t be the usual square of an operator, because that definition would require $hat{mathbf l}$ to map $mathcal H$ to itself, and it does not.
The idea is that if we have two operators $hat{mathbf A}, hat{mathbf B} : mathcal Htomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, we can compose their “$mathcal H$ parts” while taking the scalar product of their “$mathbf R^3$ parts”. This is, of course, fancy language for what you would’ve written anyway: $hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B} :=hat A_xhat B_x +hat A_yhat B_y +hat A_zhat B_z$ (note that it does map $mathcal H$ to itself). This definition, indeed, somethimes used in both physics and mathematics. In the particular case of quantum observables, we also have $widehat{mathbf Amathbf B} =hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B}$ (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$) provided that the corresponding $hat A_i$ and $hat B_i$ commute (in particular, if they are equal to each other, $hat{mathbf A} =hat{mathbf B} =hat{mathbf l}$), but not otherwise.
answered Feb 3 at 14:42
Alex ShpilkinAlex Shpilkin
791722
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(Somehow I never realized before that this was, indeed, $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf R}mathbf R^3$ and not $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf C}mathbf C^3$...)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 15:12
1
$begingroup$
Totally tangential remark, irrelevant to the question and answer, regarding your "Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers, we also have that ..." Not quite! Not only are the expressions following that not equal (they differ by 3$hbar^2$/2, accounting, e.g., for the peculiar non-vanishing angular momentum of the lowest Bohr orbit) but the difference might vary with quantization prescription, since the square of the angular momentum is quartic in phase-space variables.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 16:08
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Wait, what? You mean the quantization of $mathbf l^2$ is (not $0$ but) $3hbar^2/2$ in the s state? Whoops. Tangential or not, it’s a false statement; thanks! Now if only I understood why =/ (Although I did indeed look at all the nice squares and totally missed that $hat{mathbf l}^2$ was in fact quartic and so not safe from prescription-dependent corrections... And neither are powers unless they’re powers of $alphahat x +betahat p$ or something like that dependening on the prescription. Guess I’ll go fix this now.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 20:31
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Huh. Indeed, Weyl gives $hat l_z^2 = widehat{l_z^2} -hbar^2/2$. Makes me wonder how I’ve never seen that before. Thanks again!
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 21:23
$begingroup$
It's all described an a concise treatise ... book of ours. Mind you, this is in the Weyl prescription. In the Husimi ordering prescription the story is much darker. So, the expectation value of $hat{ lcdot l}$ in the s-state of hydrogen is 3$hbar^2$/2 in Weyl's prescription, even though the expectation value of the conventional $widehat l cdot hat l$ vanishes. The paradox was why the ground state of the Bohr atom does not have l=0....
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 21:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mistake in the textbook is the claim that there is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$. There isn’t.
What do we have at hand?
Three operators $hat l_x, hat l_y, hat l_z :mathcal Htomathcal H$ that take vectors in the Hilbert space $mathcal H$ of the system and return vectors in the same space. These are the quantum counterparts (“quantizations”) of the classical observables $l_x$, $l_y$, $l_z$, but they do not commute and therefore do not have a common eigenbasis.
For a vector $left|psirightrangleinmathcal H$ in the eigenbasis of a single one of those operators (say $hat l_z$), the corresponding eigenvalue $lambda$. By a common abuse of notation, this eigenvalue is also denoted $l_zequivlambda$, and the eigenvector, $left|l_zrightrangleequivleft|psirightrangle$, leading to the funny-looking equation $hat l_zleft|l_zrightrangle = l_zleft|l_zrightrangle$. I repeat that for such a vector, $hat l_xleft|l_zrightrangle =muleft|l_zrightrangle$ does not hold for any scalar $mu$, and similarly for $hat l_y$.
For the whole state space $mathcal H$ (or its subspace, see below), the largest among the possible eigenvalues of $hat l_z$. By yet another abuse of notation, this is usually denoted $l$.
The operator $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (note the positioning of the hat), i.e. the quantum counterpart of the classical observable $mathbf l^2equiv l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2$ (note that the $l_z$ here is not the same thing as in the previous two bullet points). Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$), we also have that $widehat{mathbf l^2} = widehat{(l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2)}$ is equal to $hat l_x^2 +hat l_y^2 +hat l_z^2 + O(hbar^2),$.
What would, then, be the correct formulation of the statement of the book? As follows: the eigenvalues of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ are of form $l(l+1)$ for integral or half-integral $l$. Also, if we take an eigenspace of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $l(l+1)$ (it will in general be more than one-dimensional), then $hat l_z$ would map it into itself, so we can discuss the eigenvalues of $hat l_z$ restricted to that subspace. The maximum such eigenvalue will turn out to be $l$.
This is surprising, because in the classical case (or, equivalently but more confusingly, in an alternative world where $hat l_x$, $hat l_y$, and $hat l_z$ commuted) the maximum value of the observable $l_z$ among states with a fixed value of $mathbf l^2$ (call it $lambda$) would be $l = sqrt{lambda}$ (that’s a different $l$!), i.e. $lambda = l^2$. Not so in the quantum case.
That was the required part. However, if you want to recover your $hat{mathbf l}^2$, read on...
So far there is no operator $hat{mathbf l}$ that would allow us to define the operator $hat{mathbf l}^2 := bigl(hat{mathbf l}bigr)^2$. Can such an operator be defined? Yes, but it is a bit tricky: it acts bybegin{align*}
mathcal Hhphantom{rangle} &{}tomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3\[.5em]
left|psirightrangle &{}mapstomathbf lleft|psirightrangleequiv
pmatrix{
l_xleft|psirightrangle \
l_yleft|psirightrangle \
l_zleft|psirightrangle
},
end{align*}
that is, it returns a block vector composed of the component operators; the space of such vectors is called $mathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, the “tensor product” of $mathcal H$ and $mathbf R^3$ (you’ll encounter it in the discussion of composite system, although this particular use of it is unrelated to them). Because it is not an operator from a vector space to itself, it does not even make sense to speak of its eigenvectors or eigenvalues.
We still haven’t defined anything worthy of the name $hat{mathbf l}^2$, let alone shown it were equal to $widehat{mathbf l^2}$. It can’t be the usual square of an operator, because that definition would require $hat{mathbf l}$ to map $mathcal H$ to itself, and it does not.
The idea is that if we have two operators $hat{mathbf A}, hat{mathbf B} : mathcal Htomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, we can compose their “$mathcal H$ parts” while taking the scalar product of their “$mathbf R^3$ parts”. This is, of course, fancy language for what you would’ve written anyway: $hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B} :=hat A_xhat B_x +hat A_yhat B_y +hat A_zhat B_z$ (note that it does map $mathcal H$ to itself). This definition, indeed, somethimes used in both physics and mathematics. In the particular case of quantum observables, we also have $widehat{mathbf Amathbf B} =hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B}$ (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$) provided that the corresponding $hat A_i$ and $hat B_i$ commute (in particular, if they are equal to each other, $hat{mathbf A} =hat{mathbf B} =hat{mathbf l}$), but not otherwise.
answered Feb 3 at 14:42
Alex ShpilkinAlex Shpilkin
791722
$endgroup$
The mistake in the textbook is the claim that there is such a thing as an eigenvalue of $mathbf l$. There isn’t.
What do we have at hand?
Three operators $hat l_x, hat l_y, hat l_z :mathcal Htomathcal H$ that take vectors in the Hilbert space $mathcal H$ of the system and return vectors in the same space. These are the quantum counterparts (“quantizations”) of the classical observables $l_x$, $l_y$, $l_z$, but they do not commute and therefore do not have a common eigenbasis.
For a vector $left|psirightrangleinmathcal H$ in the eigenbasis of a single one of those operators (say $hat l_z$), the corresponding eigenvalue $lambda$. By a common abuse of notation, this eigenvalue is also denoted $l_zequivlambda$, and the eigenvector, $left|l_zrightrangleequivleft|psirightrangle$, leading to the funny-looking equation $hat l_zleft|l_zrightrangle = l_zleft|l_zrightrangle$. I repeat that for such a vector, $hat l_xleft|l_zrightrangle =muleft|l_zrightrangle$ does not hold for any scalar $mu$, and similarly for $hat l_y$.
For the whole state space $mathcal H$ (or its subspace, see below), the largest among the possible eigenvalues of $hat l_z$. By yet another abuse of notation, this is usually denoted $l$.
The operator $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ (note the positioning of the hat), i.e. the quantum counterpart of the classical observable $mathbf l^2equiv l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2$ (note that the $l_z$ here is not the same thing as in the previous two bullet points). Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$), we also have that $widehat{mathbf l^2} = widehat{(l_x^2 + l_y^2 + l_z^2)}$ is equal to $hat l_x^2 +hat l_y^2 +hat l_z^2 + O(hbar^2),$.
What would, then, be the correct formulation of the statement of the book? As follows: the eigenvalues of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ are of form $l(l+1)$ for integral or half-integral $l$. Also, if we take an eigenspace of $widehat{mathbf l^2}$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $l(l+1)$ (it will in general be more than one-dimensional), then $hat l_z$ would map it into itself, so we can discuss the eigenvalues of $hat l_z$ restricted to that subspace. The maximum such eigenvalue will turn out to be $l$.
This is surprising, because in the classical case (or, equivalently but more confusingly, in an alternative world where $hat l_x$, $hat l_y$, and $hat l_z$ commuted) the maximum value of the observable $l_z$ among states with a fixed value of $mathbf l^2$ (call it $lambda$) would be $l = sqrt{lambda}$ (that’s a different $l$!), i.e. $lambda = l^2$. Not so in the quantum case.
That was the required part. However, if you want to recover your $hat{mathbf l}^2$, read on...
So far there is no operator $hat{mathbf l}$ that would allow us to define the operator $hat{mathbf l}^2 := bigl(hat{mathbf l}bigr)^2$. Can such an operator be defined? Yes, but it is a bit tricky: it acts bybegin{align*}
mathcal Hhphantom{rangle} &{}tomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3\[.5em]
left|psirightrangle &{}mapstomathbf lleft|psirightrangleequiv
pmatrix{
l_xleft|psirightrangle \
l_yleft|psirightrangle \
l_zleft|psirightrangle
},
end{align*}
that is, it returns a block vector composed of the component operators; the space of such vectors is called $mathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, the “tensor product” of $mathcal H$ and $mathbf R^3$ (you’ll encounter it in the discussion of composite system, although this particular use of it is unrelated to them). Because it is not an operator from a vector space to itself, it does not even make sense to speak of its eigenvectors or eigenvalues.
We still haven’t defined anything worthy of the name $hat{mathbf l}^2$, let alone shown it were equal to $widehat{mathbf l^2}$. It can’t be the usual square of an operator, because that definition would require $hat{mathbf l}$ to map $mathcal H$ to itself, and it does not.
The idea is that if we have two operators $hat{mathbf A}, hat{mathbf B} : mathcal Htomathcal Hotimesmathbf R^3$, we can compose their “$mathcal H$ parts” while taking the scalar product of their “$mathbf R^3$ parts”. This is, of course, fancy language for what you would’ve written anyway: $hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B} :=hat A_xhat B_x +hat A_yhat B_y +hat A_zhat B_z$ (note that it does map $mathcal H$ to itself). This definition, indeed, somethimes used in both physics and mathematics. In the particular case of quantum observables, we also have $widehat{mathbf Amathbf B} =hat{mathbf A}hat{mathbf B}$ (up to higher-order corrections in $hbar$) provided that the corresponding $hat A_i$ and $hat B_i$ commute (in particular, if they are equal to each other, $hat{mathbf A} =hat{mathbf B} =hat{mathbf l}$), but not otherwise.
answered Feb 3 at 14:42
Alex ShpilkinAlex Shpilkin
791722
edited Feb 3 at 21:51
answered Feb 3 at 14:42
Alex ShpilkinAlex Shpilkin
791722
answered Feb 3 at 14:42
Alex ShpilkinAlex Shpilkin
791722
answered Feb 3 at 14:42
Alex ShpilkinAlex Shpilkin
791722
791722
1
$begingroup$
(Somehow I never realized before that this was, indeed, $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf R}mathbf R^3$ and not $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf C}mathbf C^3$...)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 15:12
1
$begingroup$
Totally tangential remark, irrelevant to the question and answer, regarding your "Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers, we also have that ..." Not quite! Not only are the expressions following that not equal (they differ by 3$hbar^2$/2, accounting, e.g., for the peculiar non-vanishing angular momentum of the lowest Bohr orbit) but the difference might vary with quantization prescription, since the square of the angular momentum is quartic in phase-space variables.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 16:08
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Wait, what? You mean the quantization of $mathbf l^2$ is (not $0$ but) $3hbar^2/2$ in the s state? Whoops. Tangential or not, it’s a false statement; thanks! Now if only I understood why =/ (Although I did indeed look at all the nice squares and totally missed that $hat{mathbf l}^2$ was in fact quartic and so not safe from prescription-dependent corrections... And neither are powers unless they’re powers of $alphahat x +betahat p$ or something like that dependening on the prescription. Guess I’ll go fix this now.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 20:31
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Huh. Indeed, Weyl gives $hat l_z^2 = widehat{l_z^2} -hbar^2/2$. Makes me wonder how I’ve never seen that before. Thanks again!
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 21:23
$begingroup$
It's all described an a concise treatise ... book of ours. Mind you, this is in the Weyl prescription. In the Husimi ordering prescription the story is much darker. So, the expectation value of $hat{ lcdot l}$ in the s-state of hydrogen is 3$hbar^2$/2 in Weyl's prescription, even though the expectation value of the conventional $widehat l cdot hat l$ vanishes. The paradox was why the ground state of the Bohr atom does not have l=0....
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 21:32
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
(Somehow I never realized before that this was, indeed, $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf R}mathbf R^3$ and not $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf C}mathbf C^3$...)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 15:12
1
$begingroup$
Totally tangential remark, irrelevant to the question and answer, regarding your "Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers, we also have that ..." Not quite! Not only are the expressions following that not equal (they differ by 3$hbar^2$/2, accounting, e.g., for the peculiar non-vanishing angular momentum of the lowest Bohr orbit) but the difference might vary with quantization prescription, since the square of the angular momentum is quartic in phase-space variables.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 16:08
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Wait, what? You mean the quantization of $mathbf l^2$ is (not $0$ but) $3hbar^2/2$ in the s state? Whoops. Tangential or not, it’s a false statement; thanks! Now if only I understood why =/ (Although I did indeed look at all the nice squares and totally missed that $hat{mathbf l}^2$ was in fact quartic and so not safe from prescription-dependent corrections... And neither are powers unless they’re powers of $alphahat x +betahat p$ or something like that dependening on the prescription. Guess I’ll go fix this now.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 20:31
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Huh. Indeed, Weyl gives $hat l_z^2 = widehat{l_z^2} -hbar^2/2$. Makes me wonder how I’ve never seen that before. Thanks again!
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 21:23
$begingroup$
It's all described an a concise treatise ... book of ours. Mind you, this is in the Weyl prescription. In the Husimi ordering prescription the story is much darker. So, the expectation value of $hat{ lcdot l}$ in the s-state of hydrogen is 3$hbar^2$/2 in Weyl's prescription, even though the expectation value of the conventional $widehat l cdot hat l$ vanishes. The paradox was why the ground state of the Bohr atom does not have l=0....
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 21:32
1
1
$begingroup$
(Somehow I never realized before that this was, indeed, $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf R}mathbf R^3$ and not $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf C}mathbf C^3$...)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 15:12
$begingroup$
(Somehow I never realized before that this was, indeed, $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf R}mathbf R^3$ and not $mathcal Hotimes_{mathbf C}mathbf C^3$...)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 15:12
1
1
$begingroup$
Totally tangential remark, irrelevant to the question and answer, regarding your "Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers, we also have that ..." Not quite! Not only are the expressions following that not equal (they differ by 3$hbar^2$/2, accounting, e.g., for the peculiar non-vanishing angular momentum of the lowest Bohr orbit) but the difference might vary with quantization prescription, since the square of the angular momentum is quartic in phase-space variables.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 16:08
$begingroup$
Totally tangential remark, irrelevant to the question and answer, regarding your "Because quantization is linear and quantizes powers as powers, we also have that ..." Not quite! Not only are the expressions following that not equal (they differ by 3$hbar^2$/2, accounting, e.g., for the peculiar non-vanishing angular momentum of the lowest Bohr orbit) but the difference might vary with quantization prescription, since the square of the angular momentum is quartic in phase-space variables.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 16:08
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Wait, what? You mean the quantization of $mathbf l^2$ is (not $0$ but) $3hbar^2/2$ in the s state? Whoops. Tangential or not, it’s a false statement; thanks! Now if only I understood why =/ (Although I did indeed look at all the nice squares and totally missed that $hat{mathbf l}^2$ was in fact quartic and so not safe from prescription-dependent corrections... And neither are powers unless they’re powers of $alphahat x +betahat p$ or something like that dependening on the prescription. Guess I’ll go fix this now.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 20:31
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Wait, what? You mean the quantization of $mathbf l^2$ is (not $0$ but) $3hbar^2/2$ in the s state? Whoops. Tangential or not, it’s a false statement; thanks! Now if only I understood why =/ (Although I did indeed look at all the nice squares and totally missed that $hat{mathbf l}^2$ was in fact quartic and so not safe from prescription-dependent corrections... And neither are powers unless they’re powers of $alphahat x +betahat p$ or something like that dependening on the prescription. Guess I’ll go fix this now.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 20:31
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Huh. Indeed, Weyl gives $hat l_z^2 = widehat{l_z^2} -hbar^2/2$. Makes me wonder how I’ve never seen that before. Thanks again!
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 21:23
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos Huh. Indeed, Weyl gives $hat l_z^2 = widehat{l_z^2} -hbar^2/2$. Makes me wonder how I’ve never seen that before. Thanks again!
$endgroup$
– Alex Shpilkin
Feb 3 at 21:23
$begingroup$
It's all described an a concise treatise ... book of ours. Mind you, this is in the Weyl prescription. In the Husimi ordering prescription the story is much darker. So, the expectation value of $hat{ lcdot l}$ in the s-state of hydrogen is 3$hbar^2$/2 in Weyl's prescription, even though the expectation value of the conventional $widehat l cdot hat l$ vanishes. The paradox was why the ground state of the Bohr atom does not have l=0....
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 21:32
$begingroup$
It's all described an a concise treatise ... book of ours. Mind you, this is in the Weyl prescription. In the Husimi ordering prescription the story is much darker. So, the expectation value of $hat{ lcdot l}$ in the s-state of hydrogen is 3$hbar^2$/2 in Weyl's prescription, even though the expectation value of the conventional $widehat l cdot hat l$ vanishes. The paradox was why the ground state of the Bohr atom does not have l=0....
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 21:32
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f458490%2fmistake-in-quantum-mechanics-by-auletta-fortunato-and-parisi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
9
$begingroup$
The paragraph is very misleading: there is no such thing as the eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$, since its components cannot be simultaneously diagonalized.
$endgroup$
– Javier
Feb 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
I interpreted it as meaning the magnitude, because otherwise as you say it makes no sense
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 2 at 19:18
2
$begingroup$
They are absolutely right: The are looking at the eigenvalues of $hat l _x ^2 + hat l _y ^2 +hat l _z ^2 $ and you are misreading the text if you suspect they are confusing $l$ with eigenvalues of a vector operator. Often, in very advanced q-group texts, one writes expressions such as $| hat{vec l} |=sqrt{l(l+1)}$, but don't worry about such here.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 2 at 19:46
$begingroup$
Cosmas, what do you think "eigenvalue of $mathbf{l}$" means if not the magnitude?
$endgroup$
– UtilityMaximiser
Feb 3 at 2:01
$begingroup$
l is a vector; when its components commute with each other, its eigenvalue is the vector of the eigenvalues of each component; this is simply not a remote possibility here, given the aggressive noncommutativity of the components, so the authors warn you to not go there, which you may well appear anxious to do.
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Feb 3 at 15:06