Normalization of electron Spin state

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anton02
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Normalization
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 2K views
Anton02
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Given the Spin Operator $$\hat{\vec{S}}=\frac{\hbar}{2}\hat{\vec{\sigma}}$$ with the Pauli matrices $$\hat{\vec{\sigma}}$$ calculate the Normalizationconstant A for the given Spinstate $$\chi$$
Relevant Equations
$$\chi=A\begin{pmatrix}
3i\\
4
\end{pmatrix}$$

$$\sigma_x=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$

$$\sigma_y=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -i\\
i & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$

$$\sigma_z=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 &-1
\end{pmatrix}$$
I don't really know where to begin.
1. idea: For a spatial wave funtion I'd have to calculate the integral over dxdydz for -inf to +inf. But that doesn't seem very reasonable to me here.
$$\int \chi dxdydz=\int A\begin{pmatrix}
3i\\
4
\end{pmatrix} dxdydz$$

Do have to substitute dxdydz with something and get the pauli matrizes involved?

2. idea: If I treat the spinstate like a regular vector the norm would just be $$\sqrt{3i^2+4^2}=\sqrt{16-9}=\sqrt{5}$$. But can I treat a spinstate like this?
 
on Phys.org
Anton02 said:
Homework Statement: Given the Spin Operator $$\hat{\vec{S}}=\frac{\hbar}{2}\hat{\vec{\sigma}}$$ with the Pauli matrices $$\hat{\vec{\sigma}}$$ calculate the Normalizationconstant A for the given Spinstate $$\chi$$
Relevant Equations: $$\chi=A\begin{pmatrix}
3i\\
4
\end{pmatrix}$$

$$\sigma_x=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$

$$\sigma_y=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -i\\
i & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$

$$\sigma_z=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 &-1
\end{pmatrix}$$

I don't really know where to begin.
1. idea: For a spatial wave funtion I'd have to calculate the integral over dxdydz for -inf to +inf. But that doesn't seem very reasonable to me here.
$$\int \chi dxdydz=\int A\begin{pmatrix}
3i\\
4
\end{pmatrix} dxdydz$$

Do have to substitute dxdydz with something and get the pauli matrizes involved?
That is a bizarre idea!
Anton02 said:
2. idea: If I treat the spinstate like a regular vector the norm would just be $$\sqrt{3i^2+4^2}=\sqrt{16-9}=\sqrt{5}$$. But can I treat a spinstate like this?
Why not?
 
Anton02 said:
Homework Statement: Given the Spin Operator $$\hat{\vec{S}}=\frac{\hbar}{2}\hat{\vec{\sigma}}$$ with the Pauli matrices $$\hat{\vec{\sigma}}$$ calculate the Normalizationconstant A for the given Spinstate $$\chi$$
Relevant Equations: $$\chi=A\begin{pmatrix}
3i\\
4
\end{pmatrix}$$

$$\sigma_x=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$

$$\sigma_y=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -i\\
i & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$

$$\sigma_z=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 &-1
\end{pmatrix}$$

I don't really know where to begin.
1. idea: For a spatial wave funtion I'd have to calculate the integral over dxdydz for -inf to +inf. But that doesn't seem very reasonable to me here.
$$\int \chi dxdydz=\int A\begin{pmatrix}
3i\\
4
\end{pmatrix} dxdydz$$

Do have to substitute dxdydz with something and get the pauli matrizes involved?

2. idea: If I treat the spinstate like a regular vector the norm would just be $$\sqrt{3i^2+4^2}=\sqrt{16-9}=\sqrt{5}$$. But can I treat a spinstate like this?
Several problems with this.

One for normalizing you take the inner product it doesnt necessarily have to involve Integration. Since there’s no spatial wavefunction you shouldnt integrate in this case of just a spin state just take the inner product of the spin state χ with itself. Also for the magnitude its necessary to multiply by the complex conjugate to get the normalization constant squared then divide by A.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude
Of course for a two-component vector (or rather a Weyl spinor) the scalar product of course reads
$$\langle \psi|\phi \rangle=\psi_1^* \phi_1 + \psi_2^* \phi_2,$$
and thus
$$\langle \psi|\psi \rangle=|\psi_1|^2 + |\psi_2|^2.$$
Now it should make more sense.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude