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\mbox{ \sigma_x} and \mbox{ \sigma_y} (already knowing \mbox { \sigma_z} and the (anti)-commutation relations), without using ladder operators \mbox{ \sigma_+} and \mbox{ \sigma_- }?

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 U(2) matrix can be parameterized by :
<br /> M_{U(2)} = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> e^{\imath u}\cos(\theta) &amp; e^{\imath v}\sin(\theta)\\<br /> -e^{\imath w}\sin(\theta) &amp; e^{\imath (w+v-u)}\cos(\theta)<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br />

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

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

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

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


<br /> \frac{\partial M}{\partial u} = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> \imath e^{\imath u}\cos(\theta) &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; -\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 &amp; 0\\<br /> 0&amp; -\imath<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br />


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


But these are not the Pauli matrices, they differ by a factor -\imath. This is exactly what is done : the Pauli matrices define an arbitrary SU(2) matrix by :
<br /> 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})<br /> with \sigma_0 the identity, \vec{L} a unitary vector directing the rotation axis, and \alpha the rotation angle. By differentiating this near the identity, one recovers the correct -\imath factor w.r.t. the previously calculated matrices.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top