Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm reading Quantum Liquids by A.J. Leggett and became confused by the following statement in the first chapter.

Consider now a pair of such identical atoms. In the absence of appreciable coupling between the hyperfine and (atomic center-of-mass) orbital degrees of freedom, the energy eigenfunctions can always be written as a product of a “spin” function (i.e. a function of the hyperfine degrees of freedom) and an orbital function (i.e. a function of the coordinates of the atomic nuclei). The symmetry of the orbital wave function under exchange of the two atoms is $ (−1)^L $ where $L$ is the relative orbital angular momentum. As to the spin wave function, the combination of two atomic (intrinsic) angular momenta each equal to $F$ yields possible values of the total dimer intrinsic angular momentum $K \equiv \left| F_1 + F_2 \right| $ equal to $0, 1, \ldots , 2F$.

$F$ here is the total atomic spin.

I have trouble understanding how the relative phase of the wave function results from the difference between the magnitude of the angular momenta when their $z$-projections ($z$ being the quantization axis) are not known.

Does anyone know how $L$ and $K$ are determined?

Ok, so "relative" here had to do with "relative motion" and not "difference".
Now... does anyone know the reasoning behind the factor of $(-1)^L$ ?

share|cite|improve this question
1  
I find it very hard to understand what you're asking. What do you mean by "how $L,K$ are determined?" They're eigenvalues of the corresponding operators and if written as a sum of some other angular momenta, they obey the rules for the addition of the angular momenta. Does it answer the last question? Concerning the previous question, why would $j_z$ affect symmetry considerations? It's the whole point of the rotational symmetry that different components in the multiplet have the same properties such as the symmetries. – Luboš Motl Jul 7 '13 at 6:13
    
Also, you want to understand why a relative phase comes from a difference but there was no difference in the previous text... So which difference? – Luboš Motl Jul 7 '13 at 6:13
    
Ok, then I must have misunderstood what "relative angular momentum" meant. So "relative" here comes from the relative coordinates of the two atoms instead of having to do with the difference. ... I was going in the wrong direction from the beginning, trying to bring in z-projections and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients etc. Thanks for the feedback. I actually made an edit stating my real question, about the (-1)^L factor. I may be able to answer it myself given some more time to think about it, but I'll leave it hanging here. – DCY Jul 8 '13 at 4:51

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.