Register to reply 
Rotation group representation and pauli matrices 
Share this thread: 
#1
Jul1211, 03:45 AM

P: 30

Kindly ignore if some + signs are placed wrongly in the equations. Thank you.
Rotation in three dimensions can be represented using pauli matrices [itex]\sigma^{i}[/itex], by writing coordinates as [itex]X= x_{i}\sigma^{i}[/itex], and applying the transform [itex]X'= AXA^{1}[/itex]. Here [itex]A= I + n_{i}\sigma^{i}d\theta/2[/itex]. The pauli matrices are closely related to twodimensional representations of [itex]SO(3)[/itex] and [itex]SU(2)[/itex] groups (SO(3) and SU(2) groups are isomorphic). And they are used in representing rotation. Necessary, and sufficient, condition for the rotation to be represented is that the matrices satisfy [itex]\sigma^{i}\sigma^{j}+\sigma^{j}\sigma^{i}= 2\delta^{ij}[/itex] and [itex]\sigma^{i}\sigma^{j}  \sigma^{j}\sigma^{i}= 2i\epsilon^{ijk}\sigma^{k}[/itex]. But it can be easily verified that only two dimensional representations of SO(3) satisfy this property. My question is if there is a more fundamental reason for this, rather than just a mathematical coincidence. Or is there a more general result which relates all representations of SO(3) to rotation in three dimensions (like the one twodimensional representations have, that is more than just having the same commutation relation for the generator). Also can the three dimensional representation of SO3 be written in terms of usual rotation matrices (Like [itex]X'= RX[/itex]) ? 


#2
Jul1211, 07:30 AM

P: 42

I was just reading about this and one of the exercises was to show [itex]\sigma[/itex]_{i}[itex]\sigma[/itex]_{j} + [itex]\sigma[/itex]_{j}[itex]\sigma[/itex]_{i} = 0 for the the three sigmas.



#3
Jul1211, 07:50 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,415

I don't know the answer to your main question, so I'll just point out that SO(3) is isomorphic to SU(2)/Z_{2}, not to SU(2). Also, your last question has a trivial answer: The identity map on SO(3), defined by I(R)=R for all R in SO(3), satisfies the definition of a representation.



#4
Jul1211, 08:35 AM

P: 30

Rotation group representation and pauli matrices
syberraith
That relation is true when i and j are not equal. But we can prove it once we know how pauli matrices look like. Otherwise, in a different representation, the look different. Actually pauli matrices are defined by that relation, which helps us to get its form. Fredrik I guess I did not state it clearly. Given the three dimensional representation of SO(3), that is written in the basis  1,1>,1,0>,1,1> (which is obtained by the usual way to find the eigenvectors form the relation [itex][L_{i},L_{j}]= i\epsilon_{ijk}L_{k}[/itex]), can we change the basis to obtain the usual rotation matrix written in coordinate basis? Or are three dimensional representations of SO(3) and rotation matrices acting on vectors [itex][x,y,z]^{T}[/itex] same? I guess they are since photon is a spin one particle and its polarization is a vector (this might be a reverseargument). And thank you for the correction. 


#5
Jul1211, 09:08 AM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,927




#6
Jul1211, 09:45 AM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,927

As for <is there a more general result which relates all representations of SO(3) to rotation in three dimensions>, well SO(3) enters the picture through the symmetry of Euclidean/Newtonian/Galilei spacetime and would normally lead only to the existence of orbital angular momentum. So rotations in 3 dimensions and the rotational symmetry of spacetime should be linked 11 to representations of SO(3). But we know that this doesn't happen. The group is actually SU(2) and there's more to angular momentum than just the orbital one. 


#7
Jul1211, 11:36 AM

P: 30

dextercioby
Thanks a lot. But two final questions. As Fredrik said, SO(3) is SU(2)/Z2. Is it because SO(3) demands rotation by 360 degrees to be an identity operation and SU(2) allows "fermionic property"? 


#8
Jul1211, 02:13 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,927

These are indeed deep results in representation theory. Yes, SO(3) is doubleconnected and its topology becomes important when switching from a classical description to a quantum one. Actually, to make an addendum to the 2 posts above, SO(3) means classical physics (rotational symmetry of rigid bodies for example; I remember having seen a chapter in an edition of Goldstein), SU(2) means quantum physics. SU(2) is not a starting point in the quantum theory, rather an ending point. Galilei symmetry includes SO(3). Putting it into a QM formalism of rays will lead you to a group containing SU(2) and no longer SO(3).
As for the <fermionic property>, as far as I know, this comes from relativity, not from purely quantum mechanics. As for higher representations, well, yes, essentially the dynamical symmetry (Galilei or Poincare, both having as particular symmetries the rotational one) leads to the theoretical possibility of higher than 1/2 values of spin: So 0 dimensions (trivial representation) is a scalar, 1/2 is the basic spinor, 1 is a vector, etc. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Gamma matrices out of pauli matrices  symmetry/group theory  Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics  0  
Invariance of Paulimatrices under rotation  Quantum Physics  3  
Reps of lorentz group and pauli and gamma matrices  Quantum Physics  9  
Pauli Matrices under rotation  Advanced Physics Homework  2  
Rotation and Pauli matrices  Calculus & Beyond Homework  0 