Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
School of Physics and Astronomy Wiki

User Tools


classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1207

This is an old revision of the document!


Dec 07 (Mon)

Return to Q&A main page: Q_A
Q&A for the previous lecture: Q_A_1204
Q&A for the next lecture: Q_A_1209

If you want to see lecture notes, click lec_notes

Main class wiki page: home


John Galt 12/6 3:51PM

From the practice test:

“b. What is the magnitude squared of the total angular momentum (sum of L and S)?”

This is referring to J^2, not simply J, correct?

Yuichi

Correct.

Daniel Faraday 12/6 430pm

What's the difference between j, J, and <math>\vec{J}</math> ?

Yuichi

(By convention, nothing deeper), <math>\vec{J}</math> refers to an operator for an angular momentum, which is the sum of a few angular momenta. “J” is used when Yuichi is too lazy to write <math>\vec{J}</math> “j” is the quantum number associated with them. i.e. the eigenvalues of <math>\vec{J}^2</math> is <math>j(j+1)\hbar^2</math>. <math>J^2</math> and <math>\vec{J}^2</math> are the same.

joh04684 12/6 1914

I was looking back through the book and was thinking about the shapes of the probability densities of electrons in various wavefunctions (page 157). I can see that these each have unique shapes, but what causes them to be forced into these particular shapes in the first place?

Esquire 12/6 1914.5 (Age of being in the same room)

I believe the gnarly shapes are due to couluuuouuuuooooooumb repulsion betwixt thine olde electrinos.

8-)Esquire8-)

Yuichi

Are you guys doing a standing comedy these days?

In any case, I would not say the shapes are due to Coulomb because even for 3D finite square well has the same theta-phi dependence of probability density distribution.

joh04684 12/7 2033

Oh okay, so those shapes are just a result of the probability density functions that we developed in that section?

Spherical Chicken : Star date 200912.06

For the practice test, question 1, am I correct in solving the normalization constant to be theta? This doesn't seem right to me… is there an unwritten constant out front that we're solving for?

Esquire 12/7 2035 (Age of points)

I also had this question. I think we are supposed to treat theta as the variable of integration when normalizing. Nom nom nom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZeciX-3wfs

Esquire

Esquire 12/7 2052 (Age of semblance of credibility)

Actually one should use equation 4.150 (or a more generalized form of it) for normalizing spin functions.

eq 4.150 |a|^2+|b|^2=1 where a and b are the constants in front of the two spin functions.


Return to Q&A main page: Q_A
Q&A for the previous lecture: Q_A_1204
Q&A for the next lecture: Q_A_1209

classes/2009/fall/phys4101.001/q_a_1207.1260154511.txt.gz · Last modified: 2009/12/06 20:55 by myers