I How does the expectation value of the spin operator evolve over time?

Garlic
Gold Member
Messages
181
Reaction score
72
Dear PF,

As an excercise I am to find out how the expectation value of the spin operator evolves over time.

There was a hint, stating that it is enough to show that
$$
e^{i \frac{\phi ( \hat{n} \cdot \sigma )}{2}} \sigma_i e^{- i \frac{\phi ( \hat{n} \cdot \sigma )}{2}} = [R_{ \hat{n} }]_{ij} \sigma_j
$$
Where ## R_{ \hat{n} } ## is a 3x3 matrix that describes a rotation with the angle Φ around the n axis.

In the last exercise we showed that putting a vector between these exponantial terms, we get a rotated vector.

In the given equation the free parameter is the angle, where the spin expectation value would evolve over time.

-So I don't quite get how showing that equation holds would tell us how the spin expectation value evolves over time.

Also: In the exercise it was written S-vector, I was surprised because usually it is asked to find the expectation value of S_z.
The expectation value of S_z would be ±hbar/2.
And when we search for the expectation value of S-vector, I think of a "vector inside a unit sphere" pointing in a specific direction, and this spin vector would somehow rotate over time.

-Am I thinking in the right way?

-In Griffiths I could not find much information about the time evolution of spin over time. Do you know a source where I can find more explanations about this subject?

Thank you very much for your time,

Garli
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure that your description is accurate enough to answer it thoroughly. You have at least to tell us with respect to which state you are supposed to evaluate the expectation value.

In the second part you claim that the expectation value of ##S_z## is constant ##\pm \hbar/2##. This indicates that you choose ##\hat{n}=\hat{e}_z##. Then ##\hat{S}_z## of course doesn't change under the unitary transformation and, if you then take the expectation values wrt. the eigenvectors of ##\hat{S}_z## you get the corresponding eigenvalue as the expectation value of ##\hat{S}_z## of course.

To give a more specific answer, we'd need the precise formulation of the question, and it also looks as if this is more appropriate for the home-work section of Physics Forums!
 
  • Like
Likes Garlic
Garlic said:
As an excercise I am to find out how the expectation value of the spin operator evolves over time.
There was a hint, stating that it is enough to show that
$$
e^{i \frac{\phi ( \hat{n} \cdot \sigma )}{2}} \sigma_i e^{- i \frac{\phi ( \hat{n} \cdot \sigma )}{2}} = [R_{ \hat{n} }]_{ij} \sigma_j$$
Where ##R_{ \hat{n} }## is a 3x3 matrix that describes a rotation with the angle ##\phi## around the ##n## axis. ...So I don't quite get how showing that equation holds would tell us how the spin expectation value evolves over time.

If the spin-vector ##\vec{s}## is given by,

##\vec{s}~=~\left[\begin{array}{c}\xi^*\sigma_x\,\xi \\ \xi^*\sigma_y\,\xi \\ \xi^*\sigma_z\,\xi\end{array}\right]##

then the rotated spin-vector ##\vec{s}'## is given by

##\vec{s}' ~=~ R_{ \hat{n} }\left[\begin{array}{c}\xi^*\sigma_x\,\xi \\ \xi^*\sigma_y\,\xi \\ \xi^*\sigma_z\,\xi\end{array}\right]##

Alternatively you can define a new set of matrices ##\sigma_x',\sigma_y',\sigma_z'## using the right-hand side of your equation

##\sigma_i' ~=~ [R_{ \hat{n} }]_{ij}\, \sigma_j##.

In this case the rotated spin-vector ##\vec{s}'## is given by:

##\vec{s}' ~=~ \left[\begin{array}{c}\xi^*\sigma_x'\,\xi \\ \xi^*\sigma_y'\,\xi \\ \xi^*\sigma_z'\,\xi\end{array}\right]##

Yet another alternative is that you rotate the spinor itself using the left-hand side terms of your equation:

##\xi'~=~ e^{- i \frac{\phi ( \hat{n} \cdot \sigma )}{2}}\,\xi~~~~ ## and ##~~~~~\xi^*{'}~=~ \xi^* e^{i \frac{\phi ( \hat{n} \cdot \sigma )}{2}}##

Now the rotated spin-vector ##\vec{s}'## is given by:

##\vec{s}' ~=~ \left[\begin{array}{c}\xi^*{'}\,\sigma_x\,\xi' \\ \xi^*{'}\,\sigma_y\,\xi' \\ \xi^*{'}\,\sigma_z\,\xi'\end{array}\right]##

This explains your formula.

Finally it is good to know why a spin-vector component ##s_x## is given by

##s_x=\xi^*\sigma_x\,\xi##.

This is because ##\sigma_x## is the product of two operators:

##\sigma_x ~=~ (i\sigma_o)\,(-i\sigma_x)##

1) The operator ##-i\sigma_x## rotates the spinor by 180##^o## around the ##x##-axis.
2) The operator ##i\sigma_o## rotates the spinor by -180##^o## around its own axis.

Now consider a normalized spinor ##\xi## which is directed parallel along the ##x##-axis. The net rotation in this case is zero and thus:

##\xi^*\sigma_x\,\xi~=~\xi^*\xi ~=~ 1##

If the normalized spinor ##\xi## is directed anti-parallel along the ##x##-axis then the total rotation is 360##^ o## degrees which amounts to a sign change and thus:

##\xi^*\sigma_x\,\xi~=~-\xi^*\xi ~=~ -1##

This explains why the Pauli matrices can be used to project-out the elements of the spin-vector ##\vec{s}##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Garlic
Thank you for your quick replies :)

I have found a link where it says that the associated time evolution unitary operator ## U(t,0) ## is similar to the operator ## R_n(α) ## which rotates a vector by an angle α around the axis defined by the vector ## \bar{n} ##.
I diddn't understand how a time independent rotation by ## R_n ## could explain a time evolution of a spin state. Now I see that the rotation caused by ## U(t,0) ## has a dependency on the time so the angle α is time dependent in this case α=α(t).
Source: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics...all-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_07.pdf

vanhees71 said:
To give a more specific answer, we'd need the precise formulation of the question
My apologies. Because the text was in a different language it was hard for me to formulate it well.
The spin state was not given, only the S-vector was defined as ## S= \frac{ hbar }{2} σ_i ## where the ## σ_i ## are the pauli matrices.

Hans de Vries said:
If the spin-vector →ss→\vec{s} is given by
Interesting. In our undergrad course we defined the spin vector without the spinors. Thanks to you today I have learned about them :) I find the concept very interesting.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
Back
Top