Dot product of two pauli matrices

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the dot product of Pauli matrices, specifically how to define it when treating these matrices as vectors in quantum mechanics. Participants clarify that while matrices are tensors of rank 2 and vectors are tensors of rank 1, one can define a dot product using the anticommutator. The proposed definitions include a \cdot b = \frac{1}{2} \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{2} (a b + b a ) and a \cdot b = \frac{1}{4} TR \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{4} TR (a b + b a ), which yield results that are scalar multiples of the identity matrix or true scalars, respectively. The discussion also touches on the use of commutators for defining cross products.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and the role of Pauli matrices
  • Familiarity with linear algebra concepts, particularly matrix multiplication
  • Knowledge of tensor ranks and their implications in mathematical physics
  • Basic understanding of Clifford algebra for advanced applications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and applications of the Pauli matrices in quantum mechanics
  • Study the definitions and implications of the anticommutator and commutator in quantum theory
  • Explore the concept of trace operations in linear algebra and their relevance to matrix products
  • Investigate Clifford algebra and its applications in physics, particularly in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, mathematicians specializing in linear algebra, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics will benefit from this discussion.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
In some text, I read something like this

\vec{S}_i\cdot\vec{S}_j

where \vec{S}_i and \vec{S}_j are "vectors" with each components be the pauli matrices S_x, S_y, S_z individularly. My question is: if all components of this kind of vector are a 3x3 matrix, so how do you carry out the dot product? So the dot product will give another matrix instead of a number?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Vectors" are not matrices. Matrices are tensors of rank 2, while vectors are tensors of rank 1. I don't see how you can have "vectors" which are Pauli-Matrices.

Matrix multiplication (2 matrices multiplied together, not a matrix and a vector) has specific rules and will result in another matrix with the same number of columns and rows.
 
Matterwave said:
"Vectors" are not matrices. Matrices are tensors of rank 2, while vectors are tensors of rank 1. I don't see how you can have "vectors" which are Pauli-Matrices.

Matrix multiplication (2 matrices multiplied together, not a matrix and a vector) has specific rules and will result in another matrix with the same number of columns and rows.

In the text of linear space, it read: matrices can be a special kind of "vectors" (that's why we add qutoation mark). In abstract linear vector space, anything satisfying the RULES of linear space can form a vector. And in many QM text, the author like to form a "vector" with three pauli matrices Sx, Sy, Sz. What I am really confuse is how to carry out the dot product b/w such "vectors"?
 
Hmmm, I don't know if the dot product is the same as matrix multiplication (I'm not sure how the inner product is defined in a vector space that includes matrices), but if it is then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_multiplication

That explains it pretty well.

Oh, I was thinking of only square matrices before, if the matrix is not square then the resulting matrix won't have the same dimensions as before. Sorry, it's been a while since I've really had to do Matrix multiplication. :P
 
A logical way to define a dot product when using pauli matrixes as basis vectors would be to use the anticommutator

<br /> a \cdot b = \frac{1}{2} \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{2} (a b + b a )<br />

EDIT: latex in PF doesn't appear to be working right now. That was:
a \cdot b = \frac{1}{2} \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{2} (a b + b a )Such a dot product won't be in the span of the pauli matrixes themselves, but will be your typical vector dot product multiplied by the identity matrix. If you wanted a dot product that produced a true scalar instead of scalar times identity, then you should be able to couple the above with a trace operation:

<br /> a \cdot b = \frac{1}{4} TR \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{4} TR (a b + b a )<br />

EDIT: latex in PF doesn't appear to be working right now. That was:
a \cdot b = \frac{1}{4} TR \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{4} TR (a b + b a )

You can similarily and naturally define the cross product or wedge product using the commutator. Some playing with these ideas can be found here:

http://sites.google.com/site/peeterjoot/math/pauli_matrix.pdf

( as written this assumes some clifford algebra background ).
 
Thanks a lot. It helps.
Peeter said:
A logical way to define a dot product when using pauli matrixes as basis vectors would be to use the anticommutator

<br /> a \cdot b = \frac{1}{2} \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{2} (a b + b a )<br />

EDIT: latex in PF doesn't appear to be working right now. That was:
a \cdot b = \frac{1}{2} \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{2} (a b + b a )


Such a dot product won't be in the span of the pauli matrixes themselves, but will be your typical vector dot product multiplied by the identity matrix. If you wanted a dot product that produced a true scalar instead of scalar times identity, then you should be able to couple the above with a trace operation:

<br /> a \cdot b = \frac{1}{4} TR \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{4} TR (a b + b a )<br />

EDIT: latex in PF doesn't appear to be working right now. That was:
a \cdot b = \frac{1}{4} TR \{ a, b \} = \frac{1}{4} TR (a b + b a )

You can similarily and naturally define the cross product or wedge product using the commutator. Some playing with these ideas can be found here:

http://sites.google.com/site/peeterjoot/math/pauli_matrix.pdf

( as written this assumes some clifford algebra background ).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K