Advanced Quantum Mechanics, Notes based

on online course given by Leonard Susskind

- Lecture 8

If neutrinos have different masses how do you mix and

conserve energy
Mass is energy. The eigenstates of energy are linear superpositions of something else; that some-
thing else is called type of neutrino.

The eigenstates of energy do not mix with each other, it’s just that the eigenstates themselves are
mixtures of different states

For example, in Quantum Mechanics, consider a symmetrical potential like the above.

If the middle hump is large enough then we could have a particle trapped in either the left or right
hand well.

There is a small possibility of the particle leaking through the barrier (quantum tunnelling) but,
ignoring that to begin with, we could consider the situation to be like a particle in just the left well ,
below (barrier is so large that the particle in the left well is not aware of the right hand well).

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

2 | AQMLecture8.nb

Ground state energy in the single well has no node and energy E

If the situation is symmetric then we can consider the same thing for the right hand well. So there
would be another ground state with apparently the same energy E.

But the two lowest states do not have the same energy because these wave functions are not exact
eigenstates of the energy.

For a symmetric potential like this we know that the wave function must be either symmetric or
antisymmetric.

But we can see for each wave function on its own reflected in the axis of symmetry C can be neither
symmetric or anti-symmetric as there is nothing in the other
well.

But we can make a symmetric or anti-symmetric combination.

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

 AQMLecture8.nb | 3

The Symmetric combination (above) is the true ground state and has an energy slightly lower than
for our earlier ‘ground state’ restricted to one of the
wells.

Next excited state. Theorem is that the first excited state always has one node (place where wave
function zero). The anti-symmetric combination above has an energy slightly higher than for our
earlier ‘ground state’ restricted to one of the wells.

Remember the sign of a wave function does not contain any real information.

Energy When consider leakage and non-infinite

barrier energy levels are split

Originally when considered barrier

infinitely high and no leakage. First
two energy levels
appeared to be the same

So wave functions are mixtures.

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

4 | AQMLecture8.nb

1 1
Get mixed to: (left + right) and (left - right) ; these are the real energy eigenstates and have
2 2

slightly different energies. Neither left nor right on their own are true energy eigenstates.

Eigenstate one: ΨL + ΨR has Enery E - ϵ where E is the energy for the infinite barrier/no leakage
approximation

Eigenstate two: ΨL - ΨR has Enery E + ϵ

If you follow the evolution of these states (ie solve the time dependent Schrödinger equation) and
name them Ψ+ and Ψ-

1
Ψ+ = (ΨL + ΨR ) e-i(E-ϵ) t
2
1
Ψ- = (ΨL - ΨR ) e-i(E+ϵ) t
2

1
So at t=0, ΨL = (Ψ+ + Ψ- )
2

If we put an electron in the left hand side wave and see how it evolves after a time t we get

1 e-iEt
(Ψ+ e-i(E-ϵ) t + Ψ- e-i(E+ϵ) t ) = (Ψ+ e+iϵt + Ψ- e-iϵt ) Equation 1
2 2

There will be a time t when the phases e+iϵt and e-iϵt have evolved so they are opposite

e+iϵt

e-iϵt

At this time (t) e+iϵt = -e-iϵt

e+iϵ2t = -1

2π 2π
π
t= 2ϵ
( e+iϵ 2 ϵ = e+i 2 = cos π + i sin π= -1)

At this point Equation 1 becomes

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

 AQMLecture8.nb | 5

e-iEt e-iEt -e-iEt

e-iϵt (Ψ+ e+iϵt e+iϵt + Ψ- e-iϵt e+iϵt ) = e-iϵt (Ψ+ .-1+ Ψ- ) = e-iϵt (Ψ+ - Ψ- )
2 2 2

Previously we found that Ψ+ - Ψ- related to ΨR

π
So after time t = 2ϵ
the particle is on the other side of the barrier ie has moved from the left hand
well to the right hand one

The phenomenon of mixing goes together with the phenomenon of oscillations (oscillations between
the two wells)

Neutrinos behave like this:

Analog of a left hand wave function is an electron neutrino (from decay involving electron)
Analog of a right hand wave function is an mu neutrino (from decay involving muon)

Real eigenstates of the energy (mass) of the neutrino are combinations of the electron neutrino and
the mu neutrino which are entirely analogous to Ψ+ and Ψ- .

When a neutrino is made it is made in either a decay involving an electron or a decay involving a
muon.

Can think of electron neutrino as like putting the particle in the left hand well. If wait a while the
neutrino will switch from an electron neutrino to a mu neutrino in the same way that our particle,
after a given time, was in the right hand well

Keep waiting and it continues to ‘oscillate’ between being an electron and a mu neutrino.

Interesting because and electron neutrino can only undergo processes involving an electron and the
mu neutrino processes involving a muon. Can use this to devise an experiment to check that the
neutrino switches between being an electron neutrino and a mu neutrino.

The neutrino masses are equivalent to the energy levels.

There is coupling in the Hamiltonian that takes νe →νμ

Ammonia Example
Ammonia NH3 - tetrahedron shape
Nitrogen likes to sit a certain distance from plane of the hydrogens (lowest energy)
There is a symmetric position the other side to which the nitrogen can ‘tunnel through the plane of
the hydrogens’

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

6 | AQMLecture8.nb

H H

Spin example

Take a spin and consider the up and down states. With no field they have the same energy E

Add a weak magnetic field (weak to keep precession slow) in the up/down direction → up and down
energies now slightly different

If put magnetic field along x axes → Energy states to consider are left and right, but these can be
given as combinations of up and down

1
|l> = ( |u> + |d>)
2
1
|r> = ( |u> - |d>)
2

If we then start with electron in up state and put it in the field, it precesses perpendicularly to the x
axis, after a certain time it becomes a down (ie you definitely get down if you measure it).

Magnetic field is a term in the Hamiltonian that mixes up and down.

In between the times when the it is definitely up and definitely down the probabilities for up and for
down are both non-zero but weighted according to how far precession has gone between the two
extremes.

Mixing of νe →νμ
Mixing of νe and νμ seems to be just a parameter but there is no room for it in the standard model.
Is a small violation of the standard model

This mixing explains the apparent deficit of solar neutrinos - were looking for a certain type and
found fewer than expected as some had ‘converted’ to the other type by the time they had got here
and were measured.

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

 AQMLecture8.nb | 7

00:41:00 Reference to Scientific American, Is the electron a Sphere?

The electric dipole moment of an electron was measured

+
- d

Dipole moment = Charge times distance

Represents a sort of off centre charge distribution

A charge distribution can have many different multi-pole moments, many different shape parameters

What kind of shape corresponds to having a dipole? Imbalance of charge on one side relative to a
centre

Spheroid and Ellipsoid shapes would not have a dipole moment as they are symmetric about about
any plane passing through the centre (if charge is uniformly distrubited). But absence of a dipole
moment does not mean it is a sphere.

In Quantum Mechanics there is something funny about spherical symmetry. Suppose we have a
quantum mechanic dumb-bell eg a molecule with 2 atoms

Doesn’t look like a sphere!

Take the ground state of the molecule ie the angular momentum about the centre (ignoring vibration
for now)

If the molecule has integer Spin then the ground state will have zero angular momentum

Angular momentum is the generator of rotations; angular momentum zero says that the wave
function is completely symmetrical with respect to all rotations

If QM state is symmetric, could maybe say it’s a dumb bell in a superposition of states giving a
probability distribution that is completely symmet-
ric

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

8 | AQMLecture8.nb

Doesn’t have a dipole moment

Single measurement might give lop-sided charge distribution, but how fast would the camera have
to be to detect that the charge is not smeared over a sphere? Eg to measure to angular postion of
the dumb bell

Measuring the angle of the dumb-bell leaves it in an eigenstate but uncertainity principle says:
definite angle → uncertain angular momentum

What if the energy to the first excited state is much larger than the energy of the measuring photon?
Then the measuring apparatus simply cannot resolve the orientation.

For big dumb bell energy levels are very close together → can measure orientation

But for a molecule the energy levels are somewhat spread, for mesons (2 quarks) it’s an even
bigger jump, very much greater than energy of optical photon. So measurements would only give
you that on average the ground state wave function is spherical.

Only could find out it is not a sphere by probing with something with enough energy to kick it into an
excited state

Ordinary Bosons in ground state typically have zero angular momentum and ‘look’ spherical

But Fermions have half spin and so cant have zero angular momentum, if not zero then cant be
rotationally symmetric

00:54:17
This is nothing to do with charge distribution is just that half spin particles have a spin axis, so the
electron is not a sphere

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

 AQMLecture8.nb | 9

Imagine current going round making a little electro-magnet.

Once you know the electron has a direction then you can ask “relative to that direction is there a
charge imbalance” eg more charge on the north than the south; a displacement of charge along the
N-S direction (black blob above)

If you align magnetic field and spin, is there an electric dipole moment along that axis? Talking
about correlation between the electric charge displacement and the magnetic direction - that’s the
thing that would be called the electic dipole moment of the electron. If you orient the magnetic dipole
with the spin along some axis then is there an electric dipole moment along that axis?

Electric dipole moments are forbidden by certain symmetries eg reflection in a plane

Consider mirror image of magnet; since little circle of current ‘goes the same direction’ then the
relected magnet points the same way as the original mag-
net

S
N

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

10 | AQMLecture8.nb

But if there were some charge imbalance then reflected imbalance would be the same distance
behind the mirror as the original imbalance is in front; so the electron the other side has it’s charge
imbalance in a different position ‘on the electron’ ie one has an electric dipole moment in the oppo-
site direction to the other.

So there cant be any charge imbalance (ie blob in above diagram not in the centre of the arrow)
unless there is more than one type of electron

If we have mirror image symmetry(also called parity symmetry or reflection symmetry) ie if the laws
of physics dont distinguish between left and right hand then there is no dipole moment. But reflec-
tion symmetry is not a good symmetry. There is a distinction between left and right.

There is another possible symmetry - time-reversal eg if running ‘movie’ backwards is also a solu-
tion of the theory

Let’s suppose it is a symmetry - what happens when we reflect in time?

Again - see below - if time reversal symmetry were a good symmetry the can not have a dipole
moment unless there are two types of electron

N S
Time
Reversed
S N
->

To find out if electron has an electric dipole moment, put it in a magnetic field and see if the two
orientations of the electron have different energy.

Do same thing in an electric field and see if the two orientations of the spin of the electron have
different energies (due to the field)

Time reversal symmetry would be enough to tell you that the electron cant have an electric dipole
moment. But is time reversal a real symmetry of nature? NO there are processes in the standard
model that violate time reversal symmetry; but the magnitude of the effect is very small → can do
calculations to work out big the dipole moment would need to be before we would expect to be able
to detect it.

Is possible that the standard model needs correcting and corrections would make the time reversal
discrepancy effect much worse

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

 AQMLecture8.nb | 11

Have in Physics the simultaneous symmetry CPT ie time reversal plus change sign of charge plus
reflect in a mirror.

1.15:45 Second Quantisation

Connection with Fourier transformation

In ordinary QM have wave functions and the squares are probability densities for finding particles at
specific positions.

You can Fourier transform the position wave function to get the wave function in the momentum
basis

ψ(x) → ψ* (x)ψ(x) = P(x)

˜ ˜ ˜
ψ(p) → ψ* (p)ψ(p) = P(p) (those are ~ over the top)

˜
ψ(x) and ψ(p) are fourier conjugates of each other

˜ dx
ψ(p) = ψ(x) e-ipx Fourier transform
2π

dp ˜
ψ(x) = ψ(p) e-ipx Equation A
2π

Second Quantization: we have a field operator

Ψ(x) = ∑i a-i ψi (x) sum over every eigenvector

Free particle on an infinite axis Ψi (x) would be eipx

dp
Ψ(x) = a- (p) e-ipx where a- (p) removes particle of momentum p (if none then annihilates the
2π

steate)
˜
In equation A, ψ(p) is playing the same role as a- (p) in the above equation

Ψ* (x) when it acts in a vacuum creates a particle at position x

dx
a- (p) = Ψ(x) e-ipx
2π

dx
a+ (p) = Ψ† (x) eipx
2π

˜
Could have called ψ(p) = a- (p)

Particles of given position and given momentum are Fourier conjugates of eachother

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind

12 | AQMLecture8.nb

Ψ is a field operator for a particular particle.

Next
[a+i ,a-j ] = δij

[Ψ+ (x), Ψ- (y)] = δ(x-y) using definition of Ψ† (x) = a-i ψi (x)

all creation operators commute with each other

all annihilation operators commute with each other

Ψ+ + Ψ- and i(Ψ+ + Ψ- ) are observables ie the real and imaginary parts are observables

If two things dont commute → cant measure them both at the same time ie measuring one changes
the other

If commutator weren’t zero for two different positions then measuring field at A would change field at
B. Since information cant travel faster than speed of light this would violate causality

Next Time - Fermions. Where anti-commutators are important

content from lecture by Leonard Susskind