2
$\begingroup$

I am reading Leslie Ballentine's Quantum Mechanics, section 7.2, which is all about the explicit form of the Angular Momentum operators.

I understand how he gets the form for the single component state function, equation (7.18) which has the form $$\mathbf{R} \Psi(\mathbf{x}) = \Psi(R^{-1}(\mathbf{x})) $$ where $\mathbf{R}$ is given by $$ \mathbf{R}_n(\theta) = e^{i\theta \mathbf{\hat{n}} \cdot \mathbf{J}/\hbar} $$ He then identifies $\mathbf{J}$ with the orbital angular momentum operator $\mathbf{L}$. No problems there.

However, in the following section he claims that for a multicomponent state function we take the general form of (7.19) $$\mathbf{R} \begin{bmatrix} \Psi_1(\mathbf{x}) \\ \Psi_2(\mathbf{x}) \\ \vdots\end{bmatrix} = D \begin{bmatrix} \Psi_1(R^{-1}\mathbf{x}) \\ \Psi_2(R^{-1}\mathbf{x}) \\ \vdots\end{bmatrix}$$ where now we have, in addition to the coordinate transformation $R^{-1}(\mathbf{x})$, we also have a matrix $D$ that operates on the internal degrees of freedom --- which is to say it makes linear combinations of the components. Our $\mathbf{R}$ now takes the form (7.20) $$ \mathbf{R}_n(\theta) = e^{i\theta \mathbf{\hat{n}} \cdot \mathbf{L}/\hbar} D_n (\theta)$$

He then identifies $D$ with spin angular momentum so total angular momentum $\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{L} + \mathbf{S}$.

I still don't understand the reason why we need this $D$ matrix. Can someone explain to me what is going on here, specifically why the form (7.19) instead of (7.18)? Why does this matrix show up when we have a multicomponent state function?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ How does Ballentine define a "multicomponent state function"? I think the answer you are seeking depends heavily on why you are looking at these many-components in the first place. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Aug 2, 2014 at 22:34
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind Unfortunately, the only definition I can find is that in (7.19). I am inclined to think he means something along the lines of the Dirac state function, which is four component, for example. It's a reason I am eager to understand, since it would imply that spin angular momentum shows up in the multicomponent (Dirac) picture, instead of single component (non-relativistic Schrodinger). I think he is referring to a single particle state function in either case, hence one set of co-ordinates x. I could be mistaken. $\endgroup$
    – jjgoings
    Commented Aug 2, 2014 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ While this question has been answered, I want to say that the pedagogical picture on wikipedia really helped my intuition with this question. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$
    – jjgoings
    Commented Aug 27, 2014 at 19:49

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

Physically, $R$ is just a rotation. However, when you write $R \psi(x)$, the general result is $R \psi(x) = (R\psi) (R^{-1}x)$.

The $R^{-1}x$ takes in account that the rotation has an effect on the space-time coordinates, and it corresponds to orbital angular momentum , but you have to take in account that $\psi$ itself may be not a scalar (an invariant) under rotation.

If $\psi$ is a vector, you may write it in fact $\psi^\mu$, and then you have $(R\psi)^\mu = D(R){^\mu_\nu} \psi^\nu$, where $D(R)$ is the vectorial representation of $R$.

$\psi$ may be also be a spinor $\psi^\alpha$, so you will have to use the spinorial $D(R)^\alpha_\beta$ representation of $R$.

While you are considering the effect of rotations on internal degrees of freedom of fields, it corresponds in fact to spin angular momentum.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ This was helpful! I have a follow up question, if you don't mind. First, I was under the impression that because R is unitary, the state function should always be invariant? Clearly according to your answer (and Ballentine), I am misunderstanding something. Could you clarify? If the state function in general is not invariant to rotations, why is the single component state function always invariant? $\endgroup$
    – jjgoings
    Commented Aug 4, 2014 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ Even if $\psi$ is a scalar under rotations, so it is invariant under rotations, $\psi(x)$ is not invariant under rotations, you have $R\psi(x) = \psi(R^{-1}x)$ $\endgroup$
    – Trimok
    Commented Aug 5, 2014 at 8:25
0
$\begingroup$

As you know, any operation, which can be continuous or discrete, in quantum mechanics is represented by an operator say $\hat{O}$. Under the operation, a physical quantity $\hat{X}$ transforms as $\hat{X}' = \hat{O}\hat{X}\hat{O}^{-1}$. In case $\hat{O}$ is continuous (forming a Lie group), one can often write it as $\hat{O} = e^{ir\hat{T}}$ (there is more general form which we do not discuss here), where $r$ is a continuous parameter and $\hat{T}$ another operator (generator of the Lie group).

Now let's consider three quantities which are supposed to transform as a vector: $\vec{V} = (V_x,V_y,V_z)$. In other words, under rotation (denoted by $\hat{R}(\theta)$, an operation that is continuous and characterised by a rotation angle $\theta$ along with the direction of rotation axis $\hat{n}$), it should transform like this (for simplicity, let $\hat{n}=(0,0,1)$): $$V'_x = \cos(\theta)V_x + \sin(\theta) V_y\\ V'_y = -\sin(\theta) V_x + \cos(\theta)V_y \\ V'_z = V_z,$$ where $V'_{x,y,z}$ denote the transformed components. On other hand, we have the following, $$V'_{x,y,z} = \hat{R}(\theta)~V_{x,y,z}~\hat{R}^{-1}(\theta),$$ which must agree with the above equations. This then puts a constraint on the form of $\hat{R}(\theta)$. To completely determine it, we have to the know the algebra defined by the commutators of $\vec{V}$. In the present case, we shall impose the following: $$\vec{V}\times\vec{V} = i\vec{V}.$$ Now, one can show that the $\hat{R}$ must be $$\hat{R}(\theta) = e^{i\theta\hat{n}\cdot\vec{V}},$$ regardless of the wave function under consideration.

In particular, we see that both angular momentum $\vec{L}$ and spin $\vec{s}$ (as well as their sum $\vec{J}$) satisfy the properties of $\vec{V}$. Thus, the rotation in terms of them must be $$\hat{R}(\theta) = e^{i\theta\hat{n}\cdot\vec{J}} = e^{i\theta\hat{n}\cdot\vec{L}}\cdot e^{i\theta\hat{n}\cdot\vec{s}}.$$ We have used the fact that $\vec{s}$ commutes with $\vec{L}$. In case you are not interested in spin components, you can ignore the second factor of the above expression.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.