Angular momentum operator algebra

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 25 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 71

  • @IsaacMandez
    @IsaacMandez 11 років тому +32

    After watching this video, I kind of started understanding the quantum mechanics ..Thank you so much Mr Carlson.

  • @ferox7878
    @ferox7878 6 років тому +12

    your videos are great. This adds so much value to youtube, having such good education available to the whole world for free.

  • @martingamer5591
    @martingamer5591 6 років тому +10

    You explained this infinitely better than my professor. Thanks, my dude.

  • @spasbanchev8922
    @spasbanchev8922 Рік тому +2

    Hey, I don't know if the comments reach you but your lecturing style is fantastic!
    Thanks for the help with my revision - I've always found that seeing the derivation of something helps me instantly understand and commit to memory.

  • @ItsSebBro
    @ItsSebBro 6 років тому +2

    I'm a british physics student and this massively helped me at university. Your playlist is thorough and explainative. Many many thanks

  • @Gamma_Digamma
    @Gamma_Digamma 4 роки тому +5

    30:49 ladder puns "rung by rung"... This man is a real legend

    • @menoetius8182
      @menoetius8182 4 роки тому +1

      It’s almost as if they call them ladder operators for a reason, weird.

  • @tjh2567
    @tjh2567 4 роки тому +3

    Question 1&2 Answers: For the first one, l would need to equal 1 for l*(l+1) to equal 2. And there are always 2*l+1 states, so 3 states. For the second question, l=3/2 (again 3/2*(3/2+1)=15/4), and there are 2*l+1 states, so 3/2*2+1=4 states.

    • @michaelchang2012
      @michaelchang2012 6 місяців тому

      Shouldn't it be 5 and 7? as each step is seperated by only 1/2

    • @soniabiswas3703
      @soniabiswas3703 6 місяців тому +1

      ​@@michaelchang2012No. The answers will be 3 and 4 respectively.

    • @michaelchang2012
      @michaelchang2012 6 місяців тому

      @@soniabiswas3703Yup, just realized that for m it’s always separated by 1 not 1/2

    • @FlintPet
      @FlintPet 4 місяці тому

      @@michaelchang2012 I dont Understand the first two questions but the thrid should be 0 and the fourth schould be 15/4 if i understood it correctly?

  • @c.e.g.o4797
    @c.e.g.o4797 3 роки тому

    I could not be more thankful...

  • @supercard9418
    @supercard9418 2 роки тому

    Fantastic video, this is helping me with my Mathematical Physics classes. Thanks!

  • @ruchadesai5958
    @ruchadesai5958 5 років тому

    Thank you so much for these videos! We follow Griffiths four our college and this is indeed very very helpful for my exams!! Thank you so much! 💜

  • @condmatgirl27
    @condmatgirl27 9 років тому +2

    simple and effective explanation indeed.

  • @znorfis
    @znorfis 7 років тому +1

    I do understand that L± acting on an eigenfunction can find new eigenfunctions. However I do not understand why there can't be more eigenfunctions. Why can't there be an other operators that finds finds other eigenfunctions? What did I miss?

  • @georgeziak4483
    @georgeziak4483 3 роки тому

    Thanks for the video. Is there any video on the calculation ΔLx= sqrt( - ^2 ) ?!?

  • @recomoto
    @recomoto 4 роки тому

    classrooms are very outdated at this point. I'd rather listen to the best lecturers anytime I want to.

  • @xxdxma6700
    @xxdxma6700 2 роки тому

    Your video is life saving, thank you !

  • @anishakhatun2585
    @anishakhatun2585 2 роки тому

    Thank u sir...it really helps me to understand q.m. better.

  • @Krishnajha20101
    @Krishnajha20101 8 років тому +2

    Great video.
    But I had a doubt. At 29:26 you say that L+ft=0. But you also mentioned that the highest value that Lz can take is L. So, why exactly is L+ft=0 and not L(total angular momentum)?
    Sorry if I am being naive. I am new to Quantum Mechanics.

    • @AdamKlingenberger
      @AdamKlingenberger 8 років тому

      +Krishna Jha I would like to see Dr. Carlson answer this too, but I believe the answer is that (L_+)(f_t)=0 because an eigenstate that is zero everywhere is non-normalizable, which means it is not physically possible.

    • @AdamKlingenberger
      @AdamKlingenberger 8 років тому

      +Krishna Jha Lz cannot equal L because they do not commute.

    • @Winium
      @Winium 8 років тому

      What? @19:51 they definitely commute.

    • @manishsingh-vk8if
      @manishsingh-vk8if 5 років тому

      @@Winium L^2 and Lz commute.

  • @احمدجواد-خ6ز
    @احمدجواد-خ6ز 3 роки тому

    From Iraq, thank you so much🌱

  • @muhannadfares6674
    @muhannadfares6674 7 років тому +1

    really thank you finally I understand the whole angular momentum 🌹🌹🌹

  • @warzonemoments3970
    @warzonemoments3970 8 років тому

    Can you cancel out terms that have double Z and Pz operators since ZZ and PzPz commute?

  • @wathabalhamdany3008
    @wathabalhamdany3008 9 років тому +1

    Thanks Dr Brant carlson

  • @griffithfimeto3387
    @griffithfimeto3387 2 роки тому

    What is the result of [ Lz,L^2+_] ? PLEASE I NEED TO KNOW

  • @MiguelGarcia-zx1qj
    @MiguelGarcia-zx1qj 3 роки тому

    41:58 There is a small detail I would want to highlight: after concluding that l_(l_-1)=l(l+1), you argue that the ONLY solution must be l_=-l
    As I was watching the video, I was expecting l_(l_-1)=(l_-1)l_=l(l+1), thus having l_=l+1
    Of course, as it is a second degree equation on l_ (or l) there are two solution; the other one being l_=-l
    So, unless you add the condition l_

  • @zenojimneuromansah8665
    @zenojimneuromansah8665 11 років тому

    Very good video. I was wondering about the step at around 16:10. You mention adding Lz into the middle of the two Lx's and then go on to say "this is essentially an identity". How/where can I find a way to carry out this identity?

    • @evancooper7336
      @evancooper7336 10 років тому +1

      Basically he just added 0 to the equation, by adding and subtracting the same thing allowing him to later use the terms added to define the commutator. Hope that helped.

  • @ricardomorin7863
    @ricardomorin7863 6 років тому

    please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that at 9:07 it should be zzPyPy, not zzPyPx. This then means that the two terms wont cancel later at 9:35

    • @curiouswriter
      @curiouswriter 6 років тому

      Ricardo Morin his x looks like y. Thats all.☺

  • @dr.rahafajaj3214
    @dr.rahafajaj3214 10 років тому +1

    Very useful video. Thank you for your clear explanation.

  • @kalyanjyotikalita4562
    @kalyanjyotikalita4562 8 років тому

    very useful series. I have a doubt regrading the eigenstate of Hamiltonian operator you mentioned. Is it always a stationary state?

    • @bob98123
      @bob98123 8 років тому +5

      +Kalyan jyoti Kalita No, they're not. The hamiltonian is time dependent, as defined by the schrodinger equation. The time independent form of the schrodinger equation has eigen-functions that are stationary states. These solutions were examined previously and is what he's referring to. In general if you know the stationary state, you know (can calculate ) the state at time = t (any time later on) by tacking on the time dependent term psi(t)=exp(iEt/hbar) as long as the potential is time invariant. The time dependent term is only interesting if we're looking at superpositions/linear combinations of wave functions, in which case the phase cancelations give interesting results (as seen at the end of the 19th video/lesson). If the potential varies over time then time-dependent purturbation theory is used, and from my understanding as of so far, thats only used when the time dependent portion is small in comparison to the time independent portion. I'm also new to this, so im probably not 100% correct.

  • @yifanwang2645
    @yifanwang2645 7 років тому

    Very clear and helpful explanation, Thank you!

  • @karpagamk5562
    @karpagamk5562 5 років тому

    At 17.32 shouldn't it be lx(lz,lx)

  • @dibyaranjanpanda2951
    @dibyaranjanpanda2951 4 роки тому

    Very well explanations ...

  • @erwinheisenberg8821
    @erwinheisenberg8821 5 років тому +1

    Anyone that can walk me through the "check your understanding questions" at the end?
    For the last 2, I've come to L^2f=0 for the first one and 6h^2f on the second (h being h-bar), am I correct? How does one answer the other 2?

    • @manishsingh-vk8if
      @manishsingh-vk8if 5 років тому +2

      Answer to the last one I think will be (15/4)h(bar)^2 f. No way its going to be 6h(bar)^2.
      regarding question 1 and 2, I got the answer 5 for Q1 and 7 for Q2. Am i right ?

    • @gerontius1726
      @gerontius1726 5 років тому

      @@manishsingh-vk8if I think the answer for Q2 must be 6, because N has to be an even number and l goes in steps of hbar, so it cannot be zero.

    • @LudusYT
      @LudusYT 4 роки тому

      manish singh - The answer to Q1 should not be 5. m is 2 and so l can range from -2 to 2. Since l is a half integer, you have to include more than just -2, -1, 0, 1, and 2. You also have to include half integers like 1/2. Therefore, the answer must be 9.

    • @melanienielsen8740
      @melanienielsen8740 4 роки тому +1

      Well, the ladder operators bump you up and down in units of h bar right? Given that and the fact that the spectrum has to be symmetric about the origin, you would have to be either half or whole integer. That's where the distinction between half and whole integer spin particles come from in nature, since the spin of a particle is given by the maximum value of the z-component for instance, depending on your choice of basis right? And regarding the other questions. Since 15/4 is not an integer nor halfinteger, I believe the answer is 0. Regarding the last two, in the first case the possible values must be integers since it includes 0, and in the other case halfintegers by a simular argument. Do I have it right? Please correct me if not

  • @musab522
    @musab522 7 років тому

    thank you for the explain but you should adding some questios for every section
    >>>>>>realy very good lecture

  • @buddydiamond8736
    @buddydiamond8736 Рік тому

    thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • @herrzyklon
    @herrzyklon 11 років тому

    Really like this, thanks

  • @manuelsojan9093
    @manuelsojan9093 6 років тому +1

    is eigenstate and eigenfunction synonymous?

    • @secondller
      @secondller 5 років тому

      No. This terms comes from Linear Algebra. In comparison, E.state is similar to a vector and E.value to a scalar. In QM it is mostly used because of Schrodinger equation.

  • @abdulahamer6238
    @abdulahamer6238 6 років тому

    you're so smart.

  • @musamohammed5178
    @musamohammed5178 7 років тому

    so nice .. thank you so much

  • @RahulYadav-in9ep
    @RahulYadav-in9ep 2 роки тому

    how do we confirm the answers for check your understanding?

  • @Boooommerang
    @Boooommerang Рік тому

    Thanks!

  • @user-cf8wl9hk2q
    @user-cf8wl9hk2q 4 роки тому

    thank you so much

  • @albertliu2599
    @albertliu2599 4 місяці тому

    check your understanding:
    .
    .
    .
    1. L2|f> = 2hbar^2|f>, L = 1, Lz could be -1, 0 , 1 ( all * hbar ) . A total of 3 states.
    2. L2|f> = 15/4 hbar^2|f>, L = 3/2, Lz could be -3/2, -1/2, 1/2, 3/2 ( all * hbar ). A total of 4 states.
    3. Lz|f> = 0, L2|f> could be any (hbar)^2 * l * ( l+1 ), l = 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, ....
    4. Lz|f> = 3/2 * hbar |f> could be any (hbar)^2 * l * ( l+1 ), l = 3/2, 2, 5/2, 3, ...
    Shouldn't there be a |f> at the end for the 4th question?

  • @FlintPet
    @FlintPet 4 місяці тому

    I be watching this on my pz

  • @shortwalebhaiya468
    @shortwalebhaiya468 6 років тому

    So. Thank you very much nice

  • @Mohammed-cc5ox
    @Mohammed-cc5ox 9 років тому +1

    l = 0 , + or - 1/2 , + or - 1 ..............

  • @عدوشالعمري
    @عدوشالعمري 8 років тому

    حلو جدا

  • @solsticetwo3476
    @solsticetwo3476 5 років тому

    Nice math but no insights. No physics. No explanation about why the operator behave in that way.

    • @menoetius8182
      @menoetius8182 4 роки тому +3

      Shut up bitch u ever try to talk shit on Brant Carlson and I’ll find you.