I Robertson uncertainty relation for the angular momentum components

Yan Campo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I would like any explanation about Robertson the uncertainty relation for the angular momentum components and compatibility between the components
I'm studying orbital angular momentum in the quantum domain, and I've come up with the Robertson uncertainty relation for the components of orbital angular momentum. Therefore, I read that it is necessary to pay attention to the triviality problem, because in the case where the commutator is zero, the product of the standard deviations is zero, so the variance is also zero. This means that we don't have information about one of the observables and, therefore, we don't know the incompatibility between the two, I think. But, I can't see any kind of problem in using the Robertson uncertainty relation in the orbital angular momentum components. Can anyone explain to me, or give me an example about this? I really want to understand.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am afraid there is no angle operator such that
[\hat{\theta},\hat{L}]=i\hbar
to which we apply Roberson uncertainty relation.
 
Last edited:
Yan, the Robertson uncertainty principle is regarding two operator have a common complete set of eigenfunctions, i.e., in such basis both operators are diagonal. This is usually expressed, for example, as

$$\Delta A\Delta B \geq \frac{1}{2}\left | \int \psi^{*}[A,B]\psi d\tau\right |$$

But, in the case of angular momentum components, it does not mean that some of the eigenfunctions of ##L_{z}## cannot also be simultaneous eigenfunctions of ##L_{x}## and ##L_{y}##. See the case of ##Y_{0}^{0}(\theta,\phi)## spherical harmonic. In such case, it is allowed to have ##\Delta L_{x} = 0##, ##\Delta L_{y} = 0## and ##\Delta L_{z} = 0##.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
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...
Back
Top