Dot product of two pauli matrices

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of performing a dot product on vectors represented by Pauli matrices, specifically addressing the mathematical implications and definitions involved in such operations. Participants explore the nature of these "vectors" and how to carry out the dot product in this context, considering both theoretical and practical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to perform a dot product when the components are 3x3 matrices, suggesting that the result would be another matrix rather than a scalar.
  • Another participant clarifies that "vectors" are not matrices, emphasizing the distinction between tensors of different ranks and expressing skepticism about the notion of Pauli matrices as vectors.
  • A later reply acknowledges the ambiguity in defining the dot product in a vector space that includes matrices, suggesting that the dot product may not align with traditional matrix multiplication.
  • One participant proposes using the anticommutator to define a dot product for Pauli matrices, indicating that this approach would yield a result that is a scalar multiplied by the identity matrix.
  • Another participant expands on this idea by suggesting that coupling the anticommutator with a trace operation could produce a true scalar, rather than a scalar times the identity matrix.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of these operations, particularly in relation to the mathematical background required for understanding these concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of vectors and matrices, with no consensus on the appropriate method for defining the dot product in this context. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to carry out the dot product with Pauli matrices.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the definitions of vectors and matrices in this context, as well as the assumptions underlying the proposed methods for calculating the dot product. The discussion also highlights the dependence on specific mathematical frameworks, such as Clifford algebra.

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