Introductory Quantum HW (Angular Momentum)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that if a wave function ψ is in the l = 0 state, then Lxψ = 0 and Lyψ = 0, given that Lzψ = 0. Participants suggest using the commutation relation [Lx, Ly]ψ = iħLzψ to explore the implications of Lzψ being zero. There's a consensus that since L^2 = l(l+1)ħ, and l = 0, it follows that Lx and Ly must also be zero. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding quantum mechanics relationships rather than relying on specific wave functions. Ultimately, the problem encourages a thorough exploration of the theory to arrive at the solution.
stefan10
Messages
34
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Consider a three-dimensional system with wave function ψ. If ψ is in the l = 0 state, we already know that Lzψ=0. Show that Lxψ=0 and Lyψ=0 as well.


Homework Equations



[Lx,Ly]ψ = i*h-bar*Lzψ

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm having trouble figuring out where to start this. I think it should be clear and straight-forward, but for some reason I'm just not seeing how I can derive this. I tried using the above equation, to get

[Lx,Ly]ψ=0.

I assume from here I would prove that this is only true of Lxψ and Lyψ are 0. That is assuming, I'm on the right track.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried that out to see what you get?
i.e. expand out the commutator.

Since you have ##\psi:\text{L}_z\psi=0## do you know what happens when you try to do ##\text{L}_x\psi##?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Simon Bridge said:
Have you tried that out to see what you get?
i.e. expand out the commutator.

Since you have ##\psi:\text{L}_z\psi=0## do you know what happens when you try to do ##\text{L}_x\psi##?

The question states Lz ψ = 0, I don't have any specific function for ψ. I think the question makes this claim because Lz= m*h-bar, and m=0 if l=0.

Could I possibly conclude that L^2 = 0 since l=0, and therefore L^2 = Lz^2+Lx^2+Ly^2 implies Lx = Ly =0?

L^2 = l(l+1)h-bar
 
Last edited:
You don't need a specific function - you have to exploit the relationships: using your understanding of QM.
The question is telling you that the system is prepared in an eigenstate of the Lz operator.

Could I possibly conclude that L^2 = 0 since l=0, and therefore L^2 = Lz^2+Lx^2+Ly^2 implies Lx = Ly =0?
... consider: can operators take values by themselves?
(you will need to be careful about this to do the problem)
What does the ##l## quantum number refer to in this case?

Part of the reason these questions get set is to force you to do a long-winded exploration before finding the simple solution. Thus, you are best advised to settle on a direction for your inquiry and see it through rather than take random jumps around the theory.

Until you settle on something, there's not much I can do to help.
Did you try any of the other suggestions?
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top