0
$\begingroup$

I've seen in numerous places the argument: if the hamiltonian $H$ is rotationally invariant, then it commutes with the components of the angular momentum: $$[H,J_i]=0$$

I'm not completely sure why that is. My guess is that, since $H$ is rotationally invariant, it commutes with all the rotation operators $R(\vec{\alpha})=\exp(-i\vec{\alpha}\cdot J)$. In particular, $[H,\exp(-i\vec{\alpha}\cdot J_i)]=0$, for any $i=1,2,3$. Since $H$ commutes with a function of $J_i$, it must commute with $J_i$.

I haven't seen this argument written explicitly, so I want to confirm it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hint: what happens to the rotation operator if you differentiate w.r.t. the angle of rotation? $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jan 27 '17 at 11:50
2
$\begingroup$

You are on the right way. Consider the Hamiltonian under an infinitesimal rotation $\delta \vec{\alpha}$. Then, the Hamiltonian transforms as

$H \mapsto R(\delta \vec{\alpha})HR^\dagger(\delta \vec{\alpha})$

under this infinitesimal rotation. Finally, use Taylor expansion to first order in $\delta \vec{\alpha}$ and the fact that $H$ is unchanged after an infinitesimal rotation, i.e.

$H = R(\delta \vec{\alpha})HR^\dagger(\delta \vec{\alpha})$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, but why is my reasoning not sufficient? $\endgroup$ – Soap Jan 27 '17 at 12:23

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.