Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

Problem 1.
In class we discussed the possible states of a system of two particles with arbitrary spins
s1 and s2 , and presented a method to obtain the so called Clebsch Gordan coefficients
s1 s2 s
, defining the amplitude of each particular tensor product of the spins states of the
Cm
1 m2 m
two particles in the state |s, mi, namely
X
s1 s2 s
|s1 , m1 i |s2 , m2 i
(1)
|s, mi =
Cm
1 m2 m
m1m2

The method we used was based on writing all the possible tensor products that satisfy the
~ 2 applied to the state leads
constraint m1 + m2 = m and demanding that the spin operator S
~ 2 in
to h
2 s(s + 1) times the same state. In order to do this, we wrote the spin operator S
terms of the spin operators acting on each particle, namely
~ 2 = S~1 2 + S~2 2 + 2Sz1 Sz2 + S+1 S2 + S1 S+2
S
where S are raising and lowering operators such that
p
Si |si , mi i = h
si (si + 1) mi (mi 1) |si , (mi 1)i

(2)

(3)

In particular, we describe the state |3, 0i as a tensor product of states between two particles
with spin s1 = 2 and s2 = 1.
(a) What other values of s can you obtain when considering systems of two particles of
spin s1 = 2 and s2 = 1?
(b) Using the method described above, obtain the Clebsch Gordan coefficients associated
with all the possible states with m = 0. Hint: Observe that the same three tensor
products are part of the three states, which makes the calculation straightforward,
once you understand what we did in class.
(c) Are the three states of m = 0 orthogonal to each other? What is the probability of
finding the particle of spin s1 = 2 in a state with m1 = 1 in each of the states with
m = 0?
(d) Is it different from the one of finding the particle of spin s2 = 1 in a state with m2 = 1
in each of these states? Explain why this happens.
(e) Now, imagine that I know that the system is in a state |s, 0i and I measure the spin of
the particle 1 in the z direction and I obtain a vanishing value. What are the possible
outcomes for a similar measurement of the spin of particle 2 in the z direction after
the measurement of the spin of particle 1 is performed?
(f) Does the answer to e. depend on the wave function describing the location in space of
the two particles?

Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

Solution
Part (a)
The total spin quantum number s for a combined system can take the values
s = s2 + s1 , s2 + s1 1, . . . , s2 s1
For the case of two particles with spin 2 and 1:
s {3, 2, 1}

Part (b)
We know that all three states with m = 0 will be linear combinations of the form:
|s, 0i = a |2, 0i |1, 0i + b |2, 1i |1, 1i + c |2, 1i |1, 1i
~ 2 operator gives:
Operating on this vector with the S

 2
2
2
~
~
~
S |s, 0i = S1 + S2 + 2Sz1 Sz2 + S+1 S2 + S1 S+2

(4)

(a |2, 0i |1, 0i + b |2, 1i |1, 1i + c |2, 1i |1, 1i)

The left side is easy:
~ 2 |s, 0i = h
S
2 s(s + 1) |s, 0i

(5)

2
2
All of the tensor product states are eigenstates of the S~1 , S~2 , and Sz1 Sz2 operators, so well
work those out first:
 2

2
~
~
S1 + S2 + 2Sz1 Sz2 |2, 0i |1, 0i = h
2 (6 + 2) |2, 0i |1, 0i


2
2
S~1 + S~2 + 2Sz1 Sz2 |2, 1i |1, 1i = h
2 (6 + 2 2) |2, 1i |1, 1i
 2

2
S~1 + S~2 + 2Sz1 Sz2 |2, 1i |1, 1i = h
2 (6 + 2 2) |2, 1i |1, 1i

The S+1 S2 operator acts on the three product states as follows:

S+1 S2 |2, 0i |1, 0i = h
2 6 2 |2, 1i |1, 1i
S+1 S2 |2, 1i |1, 1i = 0

S+1 S2 |2, 1i |1, 1i = h
2 6 2 |2, 0i |1, 0i
The S1 S+2 operator acts on the three product states as follows:

S1 S+2 |2, 0i |1, 0i = h
2 6 2 |2, 1i |1, 1i

S1 S+2 |2, 1i |1, 1i = h
2 6 2 |2, 0i |1, 0i
2

Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

S+1 S2 |2, 1i |1, 1i = 0

Plugging all of these back into the right hand side of Equation 4 and grouping coefficients
for each tensor product, we get:



h
2 (8a + 12b + 12c) |2, 0i |1, 0i + (6b + 12a) |2, 1i |1, 1i + (6c + 12a) |2, 1i |1, 1i
Equating this to Equation 5, we get a system of linear equations:

s(s + 1)a = 8a + 12b + 12c

s(s + 1)b = 6b + 12a

s(s + 1)c = 6c + 12a

(6)

For s = 1, we get:
2a = 8a +
2b = 6b +

12b +

12c
(7)

12a

2c = 6c + 12a

There is a unique solution (up to an overall sign) by requiring a2 + b2 + c2 = 1. For s = 1

r
r
r
2
3
3
|1, 0i =
|2, 0i |1, 0i +
|2, 1i |1, 1i +
|2, 1i |1, 1i
5
10
10
Similarly for s = 2,
r
|2, 0i =

1
|2, 1i |1, 1i
2

1
|2, 1i |1, 1i
2

For s = 3,
r
|3, 0i =

3
|2, 0i |1, 0i +
5

1
|2, 1i |1, 1i +
5

1
|2, 1i |1, 1i
5

Part (c)
Yes, the three states are orthogonal. This can be checked by taking the inner product of all
pairs, or by noting that eigenvectors of a Hermition operator with distinct eigenvalues are
~ 2 ). The probability to find
guaranteed to be orthogonal (in this case, we have diagonaized S
the first particle in a state with m = 1 is found simply by squaring the coefficients of the
3
terms with m2 = 1. The probabilities are 15 , 12 , and 10
for s equal to 3, 2, and 1 respectively.
Part (d)
No, it is the same probability. The sum of the z components of spin must add up to zero.
Therefore, the probability of measuring m1 = 1 is the same as m2 = 1.
3

Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

Part (e)
Once you know that the first particle has m = 0, you know that the second particle must
have m = 0 also, since it started in a state with total m = 0.
Part (f )
No, the spatial wavefunction is independent of the spin wavefunction. More formally, to
determine the probability of measuring spin up for particle 2, we take the inner product of
the wavefunction projected onto the subspace where particle 2 has spin up.
P2 = h| P2 |i
where
P2 =

|ii |i hi| h|

This acts only on the spin part, and so is independent of the spatial wavefunction.

Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

Problem 2.
Imagine now that we have two identical fermions of spin 12 in a state with s = m = 0.
Since the particles are fermions, the total wave function must be antisymmetric under the
interchange of the two particles.
(a) What can you say about the properties of the state |0, 0i under the interchange of the
two particle spins?
(b) What can you say about the properties of the spatial wave function describing these
two particles in the spin state |0, 0i?
(c) Now, imagine that the spatial wave function is built up from products of two states
a (x) and b (x), with a (x) and b (x) being two wave packets with no overlap with
each other. What is the probability of measuring spin in the z direction equal to h2
and h2 for particles 1 and 2 respectively? What about the probability of measuring
values h2 and h2 for the same observables?
(d) Now, imagine that, unknown to observer B measuring the properties of the fermion
localized in the state b , another observer A measures that the spin of the fermion
localized in the state a has spin in the z direction equal to h2 . Is the possible outcome
of a similar measurement by observer B affected by the measurement of observer A?
(e) Assume that there is no causal connection between the space locations and times in
which observers A and B perform their measurements. Would the answer to question
d. be the same in this case?
(f) If your answer is positive, try to find an intuitive explanation of the apparent non-causal
impact of the measurement of one observer on the possible results of the measurements
of the other observer.
Solution
Part (a)
The spin part of the wavefunction is antisymmetric under the exchange of the two particles.
r
r
1
1
|0, 0i1,2 =
|i |i
|i |i
2
2
r
r
(8)
1
1
|0, 0i2,1 =
|i |i
|i |i = |0, 0i1,2
2
2

Part (b)
Since the total wave function must be antisymmetric, and the spin part is antisymmetric,
the spatial wave function must be symmetric.

Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

Part (c)
The probability for measuring either is 12 . The spatial part of the wavefunction is irrelevant,
since the spin operator acts only on the spin part of the wave function.
Part (d)
It depends on what is meant by affected. If the question were, Does knowledge that observer
A measured spin up affect the possible results we expect for a measurement by observer B?,
then the answer is clearly yes, because we know that observer B will measure spin down.
Whether there is a causal non local effect when observer A measures the particle is up
for debate.
Part (e)
Yes
Part (f )
The obvious interpretation would be that the spins were already up or down before either
measurement was made. The collapse in this case is a collapse of information. An example
which illustrates this idea is given in Clearing up the Mysteries - The Original Goal by
E.T. Jaynes:
Define the propositions:
I Our urn contains N balls, identical in every respect except that M of
them are red, the remaining N M white. We have no information about the
location of particular balls in the urn. They are drawn out blindfolded without
replacement.
R Red on the ith draw, i = 1, 2, . . . Successive draws from the urn are
a microcosm of the EPR experiment. For the first draw, given only the prior
information I, we have
P (R1 |I) = M/N
Now if we know that red was found on the first draw, then that changes the
contents of the urn for the second:
P (R2 |R1 , I) = (M 1)/(N 1)
and this conditional probability expresses the causal influence of the first draw
on the second, in just the way that Bell assumed.
But suppose we are told only that red was drawn on the second draw; what is
now our probability for red on the first draw? Whatever happens on the second
draw cannot exert any physical influence on the condition of the urn at the first
draw; so presumably one who believes with Bell that a conditional probability
expresses a physical causal influence, would say that P (R1 |R2 , I) = P (R1 |I).
But this is patently wrong; probability theory requires that
P (R1 |R2 , I) = P (R2 |R1 , I)
6

Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

This is particularly obvious in the case M = 1; for if we know that the one red
ball was taken in the second draw, then it is certain that it could not have been
taken in the first.
This interpretation would suggest a hidden variables model which was subsequently ruled
out by measuring correlations between entangled particles which violated Bell inequalities.

Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

Problem 3.
Assume a system of two identical fermions of spin

1
2

in a potential of k(~r1 ~r2 ).

(a) Show by a change of variables that the system may be separated by one describing the
~ = m1~r1 +m2~r2
free motion of a particle of mass M = m1 + m2 , at the center of mass R
m1 +m2
m1 m2
and one describing a particle of reduced mass = m1 +m2 moving in a central potential
with a potential k~r2 , with ~r = ~r1 ~r2 . Hint: This is described in any textbook on
~ + ~r and
quantum mechanics, including Griffiths. The trick is to express ~r1 = R
m1
~ ~r , and then show that the Hamiltonian may be rewritten as
~r2 = R
m2
H=

h
2
h
2 ~ ~
~R ~R
r r + V (~r)
2(m1 + m2 )
2

(9)

(b) Now, assume that the two fermions are in a state of total spin s = 1. What should be
the properties of the spatial wave function under interchange of particles 1 and 2?
(c) In view of this, and assuming that the center of mass moves in an eigenstate of momentum, symmetric under interchange of particles 1 and 2, what is the minimal value
~ 2 for the particle moving in the central potential?
of the orbital angular momentum L
Hint: Observe that an interchange of the two particles implies a shift of their relative
values of and equal to .
~ 2 , what are the possible
(d) Assuming the particle has the minimal possible value of L
solutions for the orbital angular momentum Lz ?
(e) What would happen if, instead, the total spin s = 0?
(f) What would you say is the total spin and angular momentum in the ground state
solution of the system and why?
Solution
Part (a)
The Hamiltonian for the two particles is
H=

h
2 ~ ~
h
2 ~ ~
1 1
2 2 + k(~r1 ~r2 )
2m1
2m2

(10)

~ instead
First, we need to determine how to write the partial derivatives in terms of ~r and R
of ~r1 and ~r2 . We use the chain rule:

r
R

m1

=
+
=
+
r1
r r1 R r1
r m1 + m2 R

r
R

m2

=
+
= +
r2
r r2 R r2
r m1 + m2 R
8

(11)

Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

Therefore,
~1 ~1 = ~r ~r +

m1
m1 + m2

2

~2 ~2 = ~r ~r +

m2
m1 + m2

2

~R ~R + 2

m1
m1 + m2

~R ~r

~R ~R 2

m2
m1 + m2

~R ~r

(12)

Plugging this back into the Hamiltonian, and substituting ~r = ~r1 ~r2 ,
!

2


h
2
m
m
1
1
H =
~r ~r +
~R ~R + 2
~R ~r
2m1
m1 + m2
m1 + m2
!

2


h
2
m
m
2
2

~r ~r +
~R ~R 2
~R ~r + kr2
2m2
m1 + m2
m1 + m2

(13)

The cross terms cancel,



h
2
1
1 ~ ~
h
2
H=
+
r r + kr2
~R ~R
2 m1 m2
2(m1 + m2 )


h
2 m1 + m2 ~ ~
h
2
=
r r + kr2
~R ~R
2
m1 m2
2(m1 + m2 )
h
2 ~ ~
h
2
2
= r r + kr
~R ~R
2
2(m1 + m2 )

(14)

Part (b)
The s = 1 state is symmetric in the spins, so the spatial wave function should be antisymmetric.
Part (c)
Under an interchange of particles 1 and 2, ~r ~r, since
~r = ~r1 ~r2
~r12 = ~r2 ~r1 = ~r

(15)

The spatial wavefunction for the particle in the central potential will be described by
spherical harmonics. We know the L = 0 state is spherically symmetric, and is therefore
even under ~r ~r. The harmonics for l = 1 look like:
r
1 3 x iy
1
Y1 =
2 2 r
r
1 3z
1
(16)
Y0 =
2 r
r
1
3 x + iy
Y11 =
2 2 r
which are all odd under ~r ~r. Therefore, the lowest value of l is l = 1.
9

Anthony LaTorre

PHY235 Problem Set 1 Solutions

October 13, 2015

Part (d)
Since all three values of m for l = 1 are antisymmetric under the interchange, all three of
them are possible.
Part (e)
If the total spin was s = 0, the spin part of the wavefunction would be antisymmetric and
so the spatial wavefunction must be symmetric, therefore we would require l = 0, 2, . . ..
Part (f )
We know that the solution for the wavefunction of the relative position of the particles is
going to look like the harmonic oscillator, and in particular its going to be characterized by
quantum numbers n, l, and m. The energy increases with both n and l, so we want to have
n and l as small as possible. If n = 0, then we know that l = 0, and so the spin wavefunction
must be antisymmetric, i.e. s = 0. The Hamiltonian does not depend on the spin, so this is
fine. Therefore, the ground state will have total spin 0 and l = 0.

10