Solv Trivial Spin Problem Involving E^iπS_y

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kakarukeys
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spin
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the equation e^{i\pi S_y}|S\ 0\rangle = (-1)^S |S\ 0\rangle, focusing on the mathematical techniques involved in the exponentiation of the spin operator S_y. Participants explore various approaches to tackle the problem, including the use of eigenstates, Wigner's formula, and the properties of rotation matrices in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests starting with the eigenvalue equation for S_y and applying the exponential operator to the eigenstates, leading to a cosine term that simplifies to (-1)^S.
  • Another participant points out that |S k⟩ is an eigenstate of S_z, not S_y, prompting a reevaluation of the approach.
  • Some participants discuss the dimensionality of the matrices involved, with one asserting that the dimension is (2s+1) and another mistakenly suggesting it is always 2.
  • A participant expresses confusion over the application of Wigner's formula, noting discrepancies between different sources and suggesting that both lead to a result of 0 instead of (-1)^S.
  • Further exploration of Wigner's formula leads to discussions about the conditions under which certain terms contribute to the final result, with participants checking their calculations and correcting each other.
  • One participant indicates a successful application of Wigner's formula, leading to a non-zero term, while another questions the correctness of the formula used.
  • There is a back-and-forth regarding the correct interpretation of the indices and terms in the formulas, with participants clarifying their steps and correcting errors in their calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the application of Wigner's formula and the dimensionality of the matrices involved. There is no consensus on the correct approach or final result, as multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved mathematical steps in the application of Wigner's formula and varying interpretations of the dimensionality of the spin matrices. Some assumptions about the eigenstates and their properties are also not fully clarified.

kakarukeys
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
A trivial problem, but I am stuck.

Prove that
[tex]e^{i\pi S_y}|S\ 0\rangle = (-1)^S |S\ 0\rangle[/tex]

I proved the S = 1 case, by expanding [tex]|S\ 0\rangle[/tex] in the basis of [tex]S_y[/tex]'s eigenvectors. How to do for general case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i think its something like this
you have Sy|S k> = -S+k for k=0,1,...,2S+1
exp(i*pi*Sy)|S k> = exp(i*pi*(-S+k))|S k>

now

exp(i*pi*(-S+k)) = exp(-i*pi*S)*exp(i*pi*k) if k = 0 then

exp(i*pi*Sy)|S 0> = exp(i*pi*(-S))|S 0> = cos(Pi*S)|S 0> and cos(Pi*S) = (-1)^S
 
What did you mean?

[tex]|S\ k\rangle[/tex] is eigenstate of [tex]S_z[/tex] not [tex]S_y[/tex]
 
U can write

[tex]\hat{S}_{y}=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\hat{S}_{+}-\hat{S}_{-}\right)[/tex]

and u know the action of the lowering & rising ladder operators on the standard basis [itex]|s,m_{s}\rangle[/itex]



Daniel.
 
your correct, didnt think about that :)
 
Sure, I used that trick and proved the S=1 case (3 dimensional matrices)

For general case. The problem is, we are dealing with the exponentiation of the operator, and the dimension of the matrix can be very large.
 
The dimension of the matrices will always be 2...

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
The dimension of the matrices will always be 2...

Daniel.

:confused: :confused: :confused:
d = 2 is spin half case.
 
I'm sorry.It can't be 2.The dimension of the matrix is [itex]\left(2s+1,2s+1\right)[/itex],where "s" is an integer (because of the "0" value of [itex]m_{s}[/itex]).

I'm getting 0.I don't know why.Here's what i do.

[tex]e^{i\pi\hat{S}_{y}}=\mathcal{D}(0,-\pi,0)[/tex]

[tex]\mathcal{D}(0,-\pi,0)|s,0\rangle =d^{(j)}_{0,0}(-\pi) |s,0\rangle[/tex]

Now,using Wigner's formula

[tex]d^{(j)}_{m,m'}(\beta)=\left[\frac{(j+m)!(j-m)!}{(j+m')!(j-m')!}\right]^{1/2} \sum_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c} j+m'\\j-m-t\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c} j-m'\\t\end{array}\right) (-1)^{j-m'-t}\left(\cos\frac{\beta}{2}\right)^{2l+m+m'}\left(\sin\frac{\beta}{2}\right)^{2j-2t-m-m'}[/tex]

for the case [itex]j=s,m=m'=0,\beta=-\pi[/itex]

,i get 0... :


Tell me what u did...And how.


Daniel.
 
  • #10
I found a solution and it looks as something rather fishy happens here...I thought i applied the Wigner formula correctly,but there are books which prove me wrong...Galindo & Pascual,first volume,page ~210 make a discussion on this issue...

I can post it,if u don't have the book.

Something is really weird.I saw that the Wigner functions in Sakurai are different than the ones taken by Constantinescu & Magyari,but they both would lead to 0 instead of [itex](-1)^{j}[/itex]...


Daniel.
 
  • #11
OMG, it's an awesome formula, I had never seen it before

I have exam tomorrow, will give you a reply after that.
 
  • #12
It's the form i found in Constantinescu & Magyari book.They're both Romanian & I'm a patriot.:approve:


Daniel.
 
  • #13
I checked the formula in the book by Constantine you said
okay, cosine 90 is zero, so the only surviving term in the binomial series is when the power of the cosine is zero.

I have
[tex]\langle s\ m | D(0, -\pi, 0) | s\ 0 \rangle = \frac{\sqrt{(s+m)!(s-m)!}}{s!}\ ^sC_{s-m/2}\ ^sC_{-m/2}(-1)^{s+m/2}[/tex]

[tex]\ ^sC_{s-m/2}[/tex] makes sense only if [tex]0 \leq m \leq 2s[/tex]
[tex]\ ^sC_{-m/2}[/tex] makes sense only if [tex]-2s \leq m \leq 0[/tex]

so the only non-zero term is when [tex]m = 0[/tex].

and the coefficient is [tex](-1)^s[/tex]

Is that the correct way to use Wigner's formula?
 
  • #14
How did u get that [itex]m/2[/itex] in the exponent and the binomial coefficients...?

Daniel.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
I used Wigner's formula to compute
[tex]\langle s\ m | D(0, -\pi, 0) | s\ 0 \rangle[/tex]

there is a non-zero term in the series (the term without any cosine)
 
  • #16
Alright

[tex]\langle s,m|\mathcal{D}\left(0,-\pi,0\right)|s,0\rangle=d^{(s)}_{m,0}(-\pi)\delta_{m,0}[/tex]

[tex]d^{(s)}_{m,0}(-\pi)=\frac{\sqrt{(s+m)!(s-m)!}}{s!}\sum_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}s\\s-m-t\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}s\\t\end{array}\right)(-1)^{s-t}\left[\cos\left(-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right]^{2s+m}\left[\sin\left(-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right]^{2s-2t-m}[/tex]

And you impose that the power of the 0 (of the cosine) be 0.

[tex]2s+m=0\Rightarrow m=-2s[/tex]

But on the other hand,[itex]m=0[/itex] from the states orthonormalization...

Hmmm...I'm getting that [itex](-1)^{s-t}[/itex] with a summation after "t" and an "s=0"...Which gives "+1".

What do you think?

Daniel.
 
  • #17
no
something is wrong with your formula
your power of the cosine should contain t, the dummy index
 
  • #18
Yes,you're right,there was no typo in my book,just in my formulas...:redface:

So here goes.To prevent a [itex]0^{0}[/itex],i'll write it again,for an arbitrary [itex]\beta[/itex] and then take it [itex]-\pi[/itex].

[tex]\langle s,0|\mathcal{D}\left(0,\beta,0\right)|s,0\rangle=d^{(s)}_{0,0}(\beta)[/tex] (1)

,where

[tex]d^{(s)}_{0,0}(\beta)=\sum_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}s\\s-t\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}s\\t\end{array}\right)\left(-1\right)^{s-t}\left(\cos\frac{\beta}{2}\right)^{2t}\left(\sin\frac{\beta}{2}\right)^{2s-2t}[/tex] (2)

Okay.Now,i'm interested in canceling the exponent of cosine,since that "cosine",when evaluated on a rotation of [itex]-\pi[/itex],would yield 0,and so i need no cosine term in the sum after "t".

Therefore

[tex]2t=0\Leftrightarrow t=0[/tex] (3)

and the sum is reduced to only one term,the one corresponding to (3).

[tex]d^{(s)}_{0,0}(-\pi)=\left(\begin{array}{c}s\\s\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}s\\0\end{array}\right)(-1)^{s}(-1)^{2s}=(-1)^{s}[/tex] (4)

Q.e.d.

Daniel.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
745
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K