Disclaimer.
Peeter’s lecture notes from class. May not be entirely coherent.
Multiple wavefunction spaces.
Reading: See section 26.5 in the text [1].
We identified
with improper basis kets
Now introduce many function spaces
with improper (unnormalizable) basis kets
for an abstract ket
We will try taking this Hilbert space
Where is the Hilbert space of “scalar” QM, “o” orbital and translational motion, associated with kets
and
is the Hilbert space associated with the
components
. This latter space we will label the “spin” or “internal physics” (class suggestion: or perhaps intrinsic). This is “unconnected” with translational motion.
We build up the basis kets for by direct products
Now, for a rotated ket we seek a general angular momentum operator such that
where
where acts over kets in
, “orbital angular momentum”, and
is the “spin angular momentum”, acting on kets in
.
Strictly speaking this would be written as direct products involving the respective identities
We require
Since and
“act over separate Hilbert spaces”. Since these come from legacy operators
We also know that
so
as expected. We could, in principle, have more complicated operators, where this would not be true. This is a proposal of sorts. Given such a definition of operators, let’s see where we can go with it.
For matrix elements of we have
What are the matrix elements of ? From the commutation relationships we know
We see that our matrix element is tightly constrained by our choice of commutator relationships. We have such matrix elements, and it turns out that it is possible to choose (or find) matrix elements that satisfy these constraints?
The matrix elements that satisfy these constraints are found by imposing the commutation relations
and with
(this is just a definition). We find
and seeking eigenkets
Find solutions for , where
. ie.
possible vectors
for a given
.
We start with the algebra (mathematically the Lie algebra), and one can compute the Hilbert spaces that are consistent with these algebraic constraints.
We assume that for any type of given particle is fixed, where this has to do with the nature of the particle.
latex 1/2$ particle} \\ s = 1 &\qquad \text{A spin
particle} \\ s = \frac{3}{2} &\qquad \text{A spin
particle}\end{aligned} $
is fixed once we decide that we are talking about a specific type of particle.
A non-relativistic particle in this framework has two nondynamical quantities. One is the mass and we now introduce a new invariant, the spin
of the particle.
This has been introduced as a kind of strategy. It is something that we are going to try, and it turns out that it does. This agrees well with experiment.
In 1939 Wigner asked, “what constraints do I get if I constrain the constraints of quantum mechanics with special relativity.” It turns out that in the non-relativistic limit, we get just this.
There’s a subtlety here, because we get into some logical trouble with the photon with a rest mass of zero ( is certainly allowed as a value of our invariant
above). We can’t stop or slow down a photon, so orbital angular momentum is only a conceptual idea. Really, the orbital angular momentum and the spin angular momentum cannot be separated out for a photon, so talking of a spin
particle really means spin as in
, and not spin as in
.
Spin
particles
Reading: See section 26.6 in the text [1].
Let’s start talking about the simplest case. This includes electrons, all leptons (integer spin particles like photons and the weakly interacting W and Z bosons), and quarks.
states
Note there is a convention
For shorthand
One can easily work out from the commutation relationships that
We’ll start with adding into the mix on Wednesday.
References
[1] BR Desai. Quantum mechanics with basic field theory. Cambridge University Press, 2009.