Finding Pauli matrices WITHOUT ladder operators

Penguin
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know of an alternative way of calculating the Pauli spin matrices[tex]\mbox{ \sigma_x}[/tex] and [tex]\mbox{ \sigma_y}[/tex] (already knowing [tex]\mbox { \sigma_z}[/tex] and the (anti)-commutation relations), without using ladder operators [tex]\mbox{ \sigma_+}[/tex] and [tex]\mbox{ \sigma_- }[/tex]?

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Penguin said:
Does anyone know of an alternative way of calculating the Pauli spin matrices \sigma_x and \sigma_y (already knowing \sigma_z and the (anti)-commutation relations), without using ladder operators \sigma_+ and \sigma_- ?

How about brute force ? Knowing that you need traceless hermitean 2x2 matrices, you put in the unknowns, write out all the equations anti-comm relations ... and solve ?

cheers,
Patrick.
 
vanesch said:
How about brute force ? Knowing that you need traceless hermitean 2x2 matrices, you put in the unknowns, write out all the equations anti-comm relations ... and solve ?

cheers,
Patrick.

Brute force was my initial plan :shy: problem is: Only using comm and anti-comm I get a whole bunch of possible solutions (like e.g. \sigma_x'=-\sigma_x=(0 & -1 \\ -1 & 0) and \sigma_y'=-sigma_y=(0 & i \\ -i \\ 0) ) also obeying these commutation relations.

I would like to restrict these solutions to the 'traditional' Pauli matrices... Am I forgetting some basic equations somewhere that 'll do just that? :cry:
 
Any representation is as good as another !
You find one, and make a rotation to go to the one you want.
 
I give here an alternative way to find the Pauli matrices, which seems natural to me. Any [tex]U(2)[/tex] matrix can be parameterized by :
[tex] M_{U(2)} = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> e^{\imath u}\cos(\theta) & e^{\imath v}\sin(\theta)\\<br /> -e^{\imath w}\sin(\theta) & e^{\imath (w+v-u)}\cos(\theta)<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)[/tex]

and this reduces in the subgroup [tex]SU(2)[/tex] to [tex]w+v=0[/tex] or :

[tex] M_{SU(2)} = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> e^{\imath u}\cos(\theta) & e^{\imath v}\sin(\theta)\\<br /> -e^{-\imath v}\sin(\theta) & e^{-\imath u}\cos(\theta)<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)[/tex]

Now as usual to find the generators, one differentiate with respect to each parameters, and takes the values near the identity :

[tex] \frac{\partial M}{\partial\theta} = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> -e^{\imath u}\sin(\theta) & e^{\imath v}\cos(\theta)\\<br /> -e^{-\imath v}\cos(\theta) & -e^{-\imath u}\sin(\theta)<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)_{\theta=0,u=0,v=0}<br /> =<br /> \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & 1\\<br /> -1& 0<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)[/tex]


[tex] \frac{\partial M}{\partial u} = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> \imath e^{\imath u}\cos(\theta) & 0\\<br /> 0 & -\imath e^{-\imath u}\cos(\theta)<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)_{\theta=0,u=0,v=0}<br /> =<br /> \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> \imath & 0\\<br /> 0& -\imath<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)[/tex]


[tex] \frac{\partial M}{\partial w} = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & \imath e^{\imath v}\sin(\theta)\\<br /> \imath e^{-\imath v}\sin(\theta) & 0<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)_{\theta=0,u=0,v=0}<br /> =<br /> \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & 1\\<br /> 1& 0<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)[/tex]


But these are not the Pauli matrices, they differ by a factor [tex]-\imath[/tex]. This is exactly what is done : the Pauli matrices define an arbitrary [tex]SU(2)[/tex] matrix by :
[tex] M_{SU(2)} =e^{\imath \vec{L}\cdot\vec{\sigma}\alpha/2}=\sigma_0\cos(\frac{\alpha}{2})<br /> -\imath \vec{L}\cdot\vec{\sigma}\sin(\frac{\alpha}{2})[/tex] with [tex]\sigma_0[/tex] the identity, [tex]\vec{L}[/tex] a unitary vector directing the rotation axis, and [tex]\alpha[/tex] the rotation angle. By differentiating this near the identity, one recovers the correct [tex]-\imath[/tex] factor w.r.t. the previously calculated matrices.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K