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.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
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
Back
Top