1
$\begingroup$

If we find the expectation value $$\langle L_x\rangle = \langle L_y\rangle = 0$$ and $$\langle L_x^2\rangle = \langle L_y^2\rangle,$$ what is the physical significance that their values are equal?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Spherical symmetry. $\endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Sep 3, 2021 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ @J.G. that was my 1st reaction, but on 2nd thought: cylindrical? $\endgroup$
    – JEB
    Sep 3, 2021 at 13:16
  • $\begingroup$ @JEB only if all higher-order moments are also equal, which is not guaranteed $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ To clarify, my comment was meant to explain why it happens in practice, but technically the given conditions don't imply the full symmetry unless these conditions are invariant under a rotation. $\endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Sep 3, 2021 at 13:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you write these in terms of raising and lowering operators, you note that all eigenstates of $L_z$ satisfy them. $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 14:14

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Use \begin{align} (\Delta L_z)^2(\Delta L_x)^2 &\ge \frac{1}{2}\vert \langle L_y\rangle\vert\, ,\\ (\Delta L_z)^2(\Delta L_y)^2 &\ge \frac{1}{2}\vert \langle L_x\rangle\vert \end{align} Thus, if a system is in an eigenstate of $L_z$, $\Delta L_z=0$ and immediately $\langle L_y\rangle=\langle L_x\rangle=0$

A system with this kind of symmetry is the angular momentum coherent state, where \begin{align} L_k\mapsto J_k= R(\Omega) J_k R^{-1}(\Omega) \end{align} where $R(\Omega)$ is any rotation. The condition $\Delta J_x=\Delta J_y$ indicates that the state is not squeezed.

The Wigner function of an angular momentum coherent state with $L=8$ and $R(\Omega)=R_y(\pi/3)$ is shown below. As a vector, the $J_z$ operator would go through the origin and the maximum of the distribution. Clearly the rotational symmetry of the distribution is apparent: this follows from $\Delta J_x=\Delta J_y$.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This is definitely a sufficient condition - do you know if it is necessary to be an eigenstate of $L_z$? I can't immediately see it. $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 17:18
  • $\begingroup$ @QuantumMechanic intuitively it should be necessary, but I’m not wading in the muddy waters to find a proof. $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ I doubt it... take $(i|L;m\rangle+|L,m+2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ in the basis of $L_z$ eigenstates. This has $\langle L_x\rangle=\langle L_y\rangle=0$ and $\langle L_x^2\rangle=\langle L_y^2\rangle$ but is not an eigenstate of $L_z$. $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 18:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @QuantumMechanic good point. was thinking in terms of Pauli matrices, not in terms of higher dimensional reps… $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 19:25
0
$\begingroup$

One can always define a basis in which $\langle L_x\rangle=\langle L_y\rangle=0$ by an appropriate rotation of the coordinates. Then, the only nontrivial uncertainty relationship is $$\mathrm{Var}(L_x)\mathrm{Var}(L_y)\geq \frac{1}{4}\left|\langle L_z\rangle\right|^2.$$ Since in this scenario the two variances are equal, we find that $$\langle L_x^2\rangle=\langle L_y^2\rangle\geq\frac{1}{2}\left|\langle L_z\rangle\right|.$$

The next notion often considered is squeezing. In this basis, it is defined as when $$\langle L_x^2\rangle<\frac{1}{2}\left|\langle L_z\rangle\right|<\langle L_x^2\rangle$$ or $$\langle L_y^2\rangle<\frac{1}{2}\left|\langle L_z\rangle\right|<\langle L_x^2\rangle.$$ Neither of these sets of inequalities can hold with the present condition, so there is no squeezing in this basis.

Now, the above definitions are not SU(2)-invariant; a rotation about the $z$ axis leaves all of the $L_z$ moments unchanged and the expectation values of $L_x$ and $L_y$ unchanged while changing all of the other moments. So we can ask whether, for any value of $\theta$, $$\mathrm{Var}(L_x\cos\theta+L_y\sin\theta)<\frac{1}{2}\left|\langle L_z\rangle\right|<\mathrm{Var}(-L_x\sin\theta+L_y\cos\theta)?$$ Expanding the variances, we find the conditions \begin{aligned} \langle L_x^2\rangle\cos^2\theta+\langle L_y^2\rangle\sin^2\theta+\langle L_x L_y+L_y L_x\rangle\cos\theta\sin\theta<\frac{1}{2}\left|\langle L_z\rangle\right|<\langle L_x^2\rangle\sin^2\theta+\langle L_y^2\rangle\cos^2\theta-\langle L_x L_y+L_y L_x\rangle\cos\theta\sin\theta\\ \langle L_x^2\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\langle L_x L_y+L_y L_x\rangle\sin2\theta<\frac{1}{2}\left|\langle L_z\rangle\right|<\langle L_x^2\rangle-\frac{1}{2}\langle L_x L_y+L_y L_x\rangle\sin2\theta. \end{aligned} These correlations between $L_x$ and $L_y$ do not automatically vanish (if you assume that they do, which is a stronger assumption, you will guarantee no squeezing). If, for example, we have $\frac{1}{2}\left|\langle L_z\rangle\right|\approx\langle L_x^2\rangle$ and nonzero correlations between $L_x$ and $L_y$, then squeezing is definitely present for most choices of angles $\theta$. This cannot be directly accomplished, because $\frac{1}{2}\left|\langle L_z\rangle\right|=\langle L_x^2\rangle$ would here imply that those correlations are zero, so we can still wonder whether this squeezing can be accomplished.

Let's explore further. Using the Schwinger mapping $$L_x=(a^\dagger b+a b^\dagger)/2,\quad L_y=-i(a^\dagger b-a b^\dagger)/2,\quad L_z=(a^\dagger a+b^\dagger b)/2,$$ the assumed conditions are $$\boxed{\langle a^\dagger b\rangle=\langle a b^\dagger\rangle=0}$$ and $$\boxed{\langle a^{\dagger \,2} b^2+a^2 b^{\dagger \,2}\rangle=0}.$$ These imply that $$\langle L_x^2\rangle=\langle L_y^2\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle a^\dagger a b^\dagger b\rangle+\frac{1}{4}\langle a^\dagger a +b^\dagger b\rangle$$ and $$\langle L_x L_y+L_y L_x\rangle=\frac{-i}{4}\langle a^{\dagger \,2} b^2- a^2 b^{\dagger \,2}\rangle=\frac{-i}{2}\langle a^{\dagger \,2} b^2\rangle.$$ Clearly any state with $\langle a^\dagger a\rangle=\langle b^\dagger b\rangle$ has $\langle L_z\rangle=0$ and thus cannot be squeezed. Without loss of generality, we can inspect $\langle a^\dagger a\rangle>\langle b^\dagger b\rangle$, for which the squeezing condition becomes \begin{aligned} \frac{1}{2}\langle a^\dagger a b^\dagger b\rangle+\frac{1}{4}\langle a^\dagger a +b^\dagger b\rangle-i\frac{\sin2\theta}{2}\langle a^{\dagger \,2} b^2\rangle<\frac{1}{4}\langle a^\dagger a-b^\dagger b\rangle\\ \langle a^\dagger a b^\dagger b\rangle+\langle b^\dagger b\rangle-i{\sin2\theta}\langle a^{\dagger \,2} b^2\rangle<0. \end{aligned} We know that, since the covariance matrix with elements $\frac{1}{2}\langle L_i L_j+L_j L_i\rangle-\langle L_i \rangle\langle L_j\rangle$ is positive semidefinite, $$\langle a^\dagger a b^\dagger b\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\langle a^\dagger a+ b^\dagger b\rangle>\left|\langle a^{\dagger \,2} b^2\rangle\right|$$ and we also know that, with our assumptions, $$\langle a^\dagger a b^\dagger b\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\langle a^\dagger a+ b^\dagger b\rangle>\langle a^\dagger a b^\dagger b\rangle+\langle b^\dagger b\rangle,$$ so I do not yet see a reason why there should be no states for which \begin{aligned} \langle a^\dagger a b^\dagger b\rangle+\langle b^\dagger b\rangle-i{\sin2\theta}\langle a^{\dagger \,2} b^2\rangle<0\\ \Leftarrow \langle a^\dagger a b^\dagger b\rangle+\langle b^\dagger b\rangle<\left|\langle a^{\dagger \,2} b^2\rangle\right|. \end{aligned} I wonder if this can be accomplished...

Anyway, using the boxed equations, we can specify some states satisfying the assumptions. Obviously the eigenstates of $L_z$, $$||L,m\rangle=|L+m\rangle_a\otimes|L-m\rangle_b,$$ will suffice, but so too will states that are not eigenstates of $L_z$, such as $$\frac{||L,m\rangle+||L,m+2\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}.$$

Going back to the original angular momentum notation, if we use the standard raising and lowering operators $L_\pm=L_x\pm iL_y$ that enact $L_\pm||L,m\rangle\propto ||L,m\pm 1\rangle$, all of the conditions become \begin{aligned} \boxed{\langle L_\pm\rangle=0,\quad \langle L_+^2+L_-^2\rangle=0.} \end{aligned} This makes it easy to find other exemplary states, such as $$||L,m\rangle+||L,m+k\rangle+||L,m+k+l\rangle+\cdots,\qquad k>2, l>2, \cdots.$$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Since averages of $a^\dagger a b^\dagger b$ and $b^\dagger b$ are real, can your guarantee that the term in $\sin\theta$ in your last inequality will also be real else you are comparing a complex number to $0$ :( $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero yes of course! The first boxed equation (from one of the assumptions) implies that $\langle a^{\dagger\,2}b^2\rangle$ is purely imaginary $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 23:48

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.