Quantum angular momentum proportionality constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the proportionality between the angular momentum operators and their eigenstates in quantum mechanics. The user seeks clarification on how the application of the raising and lowering operators results in the states being proportional, specifically L+/-|l,m> ∝ |l, m+/-1>. It is noted that the resulting state from these operators is not necessarily normalized, which is crucial since all eigenstates must be normalized due to the probabilistic interpretation in quantum mechanics. The importance of normalization is emphasized, as it ensures the probability of finding a system in a given state is maximized. The user acknowledges their misunderstanding and expresses gratitude for the clarification.
bartrocs
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Hi, not a homework problem as such, but I am studying introductory quantum physics and having some trouble understanding how applying the rising or lowering operator for angular momentum implies:

L+/-|l,m> ∝ |l, m+/-1>
Basically, my question is the same as the first part (Q1) as described in the following link.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2552515

Regarding the answer to that post, I can get to the two expressions quite easily by using the commutation relations, but even after reading it multiple times, I don't understand how the proportionality is implied. I know this is probably trivial and I'm probably just missing some obvious fact due to the time being 1.30am. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because the state ##L_{+/-} |l,m\rangle## is not necessarily normalized, while all ##|l,m\rangle## must be normalized.
 
blue_leaf77, thanks. It was one of those lack of sleep things. I just woke up and realized this. Also, mathematically speaking, there is an infinite amount of choices for our eigenvector based on a given eigenstate and scale factor. We must obviously use the one that fits our operator, ie it must be normalised.
 
bartrocs said:
We must obviously use the one that fits our operator, ie it must be normalised.
The vectors (including eigenvectors of an operator) in QM are agreed to be normalized because of the probabilistic interpretation assigned to the inner product between any two vectors. The probability of finding a given state to be in that same state must be equal to the maximum allowed value for a probability, which is unity.
 
okay thanks I understand my mistake and (hopefully) will not make it again :smile:
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top