I am confused about a proof my Quantum Mechanics textbook has left "as an exercise for the reader".

So, we've got the angular momentum operator $\hat{L}$. We've also got the generalized angular momentum $\hat{J}: \hat{L}=\hbar\hat{J}$. We've got the commutation relations $[\hat{J_k},\hat{J_l}]$ and $[\hat{J^2},\hat{J_k}]$.

We've introduced the "ladder operators" $\hat{J_+}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\hat{J_1}+i\hat{J_2})$ and $\hat{J_-}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\hat{J_1}-i\hat{J_2})$.

Then, we went on to prove three properties for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\hat{J^2}$ and $\hat{J_3}$: $\hat{J^2}\left|J,m\right\rangle=J^2\left|J,m\right\rangle$, $\hat{J_3}\left|J,m\right\rangle=m\left|J,m\right\rangle$:

  1. $m^2\leq J^2$ (so there are minimal and maximal $m$s).

  2. $J_+$ "raises" $m$ to $m+1$, $J_-$ "lowers" $m$ to $m-1$.

  3. $j$ (which comes from $J^2 \rightarrow j(j+1)$) is an integer or half-integer number.

The question my textbook asks is: Why is $\Delta m$ an integer number?

I thought it was because of the second property but when I asked my professor, he told me this was not a good proof. "$J_+$ changing $m$ from 0 to 1 does not prove that $\Delta m = 1/3$ is impossible".

So, how do I prove this? I thought it was quite trivial, but it turned out it is not.

P.S.: I already viewed this question but it doesn't help me much.

Edit: I may have got a little "lost in translation". The real question my textbook asks is Why is $\Delta m$ an integer number?

  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused, how did you prove that j is a half-integer number? I thought it could either be an integer or a half integer (see my response here: physics.stackexchange.com/q/27899) . Once you've proven that for j, then I agree with you that the conclusion for m follows automatically from the 2nd statement in your question $\endgroup$ May 20, 2015 at 1:03
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I meant "integer or half-integer number". I was regarding integers as composed of an even number of half-integers. Also, I meant "Why is $\Delta m$ an integer number?" I know $m$ may have any value, but $\Delta m$ (the step from one $m$ to the next) may only be an integer value. $\endgroup$
    – iordan_93
    May 20, 2015 at 20:41

2 Answers 2


Your points ,1-3 are fine. There are is a maximal and a minimal value of $m$. Call the maximal value $M$ (we have to call it something). Now we can apply the lower operator any number of times, each time it lowers the value of $m$ by a full integer amount. The maximum and minimum value have a a finite difference $d$. So if you round $d$ up to the nearest integer $n$ you see that applying the lowering operator $n$ times must yield the state of lowest $m$ (or else hit a zero magnitude state first). So a finite number of applications of the lowering operator sent the maximum value $M$ to the minimum value, so they differ by an integer amount (each time you lowered, $m$ went down by 1). So the maximum and the minimum values of $m$ differ by an integer.

To me, this is the proof that $j=M$ is an integer or half integer value ($n=j-(-j)=2j$). It sounds like your proofs are backwards and you are also trying to prove an untrue claim (that $m$ must be integer when for instance the spin of a spin 1/2 particle can have $m=1/2$).

To explicitly show that m=1/2 is possible, let $J_x=\hbar\sqrt{3/4} \sigma_x$, $J_y=\hbar\sqrt{3/4} \sigma_y$, $J_z=\hbar\sqrt{3/4} \sigma_z$ and $J^2=\hbar^23/4\left( \sigma_x^2+\sigma_y^2+\sigma_z^2\right)$. Then note that they satisfy the commutation relations. Then note that the eigenvalues of $J_z$ are $\pm \hbar/2$ hence $m=\pm 1/2$ by definition.

Thus it is impossible to prove your desired claim that $m$ is an integer from the hyopthesi since the above paragraph satisfies the hypothesi and yet the conclusion is false as $m=1/2$ is not an integer but is a perfectly fine value.

Response to the edited question

If you have two values of $m$ that differ by a noninteger then the lowering operator applied many times to each can't both stop at one and the very same lowest $m$ state. So there would have to be a state besides the lowest $m$ state that is sent to zero by the lowering operator.

Show (or assume) that can't happen and you are pretty much done.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer, but I made a mistake. My textbook asked why is $\Delta m$ an integer value and I think you answered my question. P.S.: I know about spin one-half and its great importance in quantum mechanics :) $\endgroup$
    – iordan_93
    May 20, 2015 at 20:46

Your point 1. show that if $j$ (assumed $>0$) is the max value of $m$, then $-j$ is the lowest value, i.e the conditions is symmetric on $m$.

Your point 2. shows that you must be able to reach $j$ from $-j$ using an integer number of steps, which is same as saying $2j$ must be an integer.

As to your final question: since you proved that $J_\pm$ raise or lower by 1, start with the maximal value of $m$, which is $j$ and "crank down" using $J_-$. You can only reach states with $m$ values given by $j,j-1,\ldots,-j$.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that your $j=4/3$, so that $2j$ is not an integer. Applying $J_-$ repeatedly produces the sequence of $m$ values $4/3,1/3,-2/3$. It is easy to see that the smallest $m$ is not the negative of the largest $m$; this sequence of $m$'s has no physical meaning since reversing the $z$ axis should just reverse the sign of the projection $m$, justifying the symmetry in the sign of $m$ encapsulated in your point 1. Moreover you never get anything but $\Delta m=\pm 1$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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