Timeline for Adding 3 electron spins
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 19, 2018 at 10:00 | history | edited | Enigma | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 293 characters in body
|
| Dec 19, 2018 at 8:43 | comment | added | Enigma | Textbooks tell us the C-G coefficients can always chosen real (at least for addition of two angular momenta). Here we see that a real orthogonal matrix works for 3 spins-1/2, and we even have more than one possible real solutions. I'd like to mention that my choice looks more balanced compared with those in the lecture notes. For my choice, I believe some linear combination of the operators $S_1\cdot S_2$, $S_2\cdot S_3$, and $S_1\cdot S_3$ will give the corresponding constant of motion that resolve the degeneracy. | |
| Dec 19, 2018 at 8:05 | vote | accept | Gere | ||
| Dec 19, 2018 at 8:06 | |||||
| Dec 19, 2018 at 8:03 | comment | added | Gere | I have the impression U should be unitary and not orthogonal?! In that case my attempt with complex coefficients satisfies all needed conditions? Can you still you a spin swap operator when you have 4 spins and a triple-degeneracy? | |
| Dec 19, 2018 at 6:59 | history | edited | Enigma | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| Dec 19, 2018 at 6:10 | comment | added | Enigma | Please see that update. | |
| Dec 19, 2018 at 6:09 | history | edited | Enigma | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 678 characters in body
|
| Dec 18, 2018 at 21:05 | comment | added | Gere | Hi. It's been a while since I did physics and it will take me a while to think about that. Is my solution also working? Which quantum number would you suggest to resolve the degenerate states? | |
| Dec 18, 2018 at 17:20 | review | Late answers | |||
| Dec 18, 2018 at 17:55 | |||||
| Dec 18, 2018 at 17:05 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 18, 2018 at 18:16 | |||||
| Dec 18, 2018 at 17:02 | history | answered | Enigma | CC BY-SA 4.0 |