On the meaning and mathematics of rotating spin 1/2 particles

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the mathematical and conceptual understanding of rotating spin-1/2 particles in quantum mechanics, particularly the implications of requiring a 720-degree rotation for these particles to return to their original state. The conversation explores the relationship between geometric algebra, quantum state vectors, and the nature of quantum interference.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the idea that a spin-1/2 particle must be rotated 720 degrees to return to its original orientation, questioning whether this is merely a mathematical construct rather than a physical reality.
  • It is noted that a rotation in ordinary 3D space corresponds to an operator that acts on spin states, with a 360-degree rotation resulting in the spin state being transformed into its negative.
  • Participants mention that while the negative phase factor from a 360-degree rotation does not affect measured observables, it leads to interesting quantum interference effects when superpositions are involved.
  • There is a query about the relationship between rotation operators and observable operators in quantum mechanics, with some clarification that rotations are represented by unitary operators, while observables are represented by Hermitian operators.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about dismissing the "quantum weirdness" associated with spin-1/2 particles as simply a mathematical technique.
  • References to experiments demonstrating the effects of rotation on spin states are provided, including neutron interferometry and theoretical proposals related to the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the interpretation of the 720-degree rotation and its implications for understanding quantum mechanics. While some agree on the mathematical representation of rotations, there is disagreement regarding the interpretation of these results and the nature of quantum "weirdness."

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves complex concepts that depend on specific definitions and interpretations in quantum mechanics. Some assumptions about the nature of operators and their roles in quantum theory remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and professionals in quantum mechanics, particularly those exploring the implications of spin and rotation in quantum systems.

snoopies622
Messages
852
Reaction score
29
TL;DR
How to interpret 1/2 spin
The other day I found a fascinating video on geometric algebra:



At 34:50, after showing how to rotate a vector in three dimensions, he says, "wait a minute, this looks like a spinor from quantum mechanics. The way that spinors rotate is always said to be a part of so-called 'quantum weirdness', but in fact it's just based on the fact that the best way to represent rotations involves applying the rotation twice."

I've never understood what is meant by this idea that one has to rotate an electron 720 degrees in order to have it arrive back at its original orientation. Is this the meaning? This makes it seem like only a mathematical construct rather than some kind of physical reality.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
snoopies622 said:
I've never understood what is meant by this idea that one has to rotate an electron 720 degrees in order to have it arrive back at its original orientation. Is this the meaning? This makes it seem like only a mathematical construct rather than some kind of physical reality.
The basic idea of QM is that things are described by a state vector. The spin state of a spin-1/2 particle is described by a two-dimensional complex vector. Now, a rotation of the system in ordinary 3D space corresponds to an operator (matrix) that acts on spin states. You rotate the system and the spin state is operated on by the relevant matrix. But, like the example of the rotor in your video, this operator uses half the angle. That means that a physical 360 degree rotation transforms the spin state into the negative of what it was. In one sense, that doesn't matter, as the factor of ##-1## is just a phase factor and doesn't change the value of any measured observable. Anything you choose to measure will be the same as before.

But, if you create a superposition of states, rotate one by 360 degrees, then recombine the superposition, they should cancel out (an extraordinary example of quantum interference). This experiment has been conducted successfully. In a demonstrable way, therefore, the state of an electron is changed by a 360 degree rotation and it only returns to the original state after a 720 degree rotation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Thank you PeroK for that thorough explanation! I have only one point of confusion: When you say that a rotation of the system corresponds to an operator matrix, I thought that in QM, operators correspond to physical observables, as in, "this matrix operator corresponds to the particle's momentum in the x direction". and with the matrix we have its eigenvectors and eigenvalues which correspond to the possible resulting states and values of performing the (in this case) momentum in the x direction measurement.

I understand how in pure mathematics, multiplying a vector by a matrix creates a new vector, and one can choose a matrix that will rotate the vector in any desirable fashion. In this electron spin area, are the matrices that correspond to the physical observables (spin in the x,y or z direction) the same as the matrices that will rotate a vector by . . some angle?
 
snoopies622 said:
I have only one point of confusion: When you say that a rotation of the system corresponds to an operator matrix, I thought that in QM, operators correspond to physical observables, as in, "this matrix operator corresponds to the particle's momentum in the x direction". and with the matrix we have its eigenvectors and eigenvalues which correspond to the possible resulting states and values of performing the (in this case) momentum in the x direction measurement.
Observables are represented by Hermitian operators, as you say. But, operators play a wider role in QM. E.g. rotations and space and time translations are represented by unitary operators.
 
Thanks again PeroK, I think I understand. Mentioning interference was very helpful. It seems to me now that the fellow in the video is incorrect to dismiss the "quantum weirdness" of rotating spin 1/2 particles as a mere manifestation of a particular mathematical technique.
 
PeroK said:
But, if you create a superposition of states, rotate one by 360 degrees, then recombine the superposition, they should cancel out (an extraordinary example of quantum interference). This experiment has been conducted successfully. In a demonstrable way, therefore, the state of an electron is changed by a 360 degree rotation and it only returns to the original state after a 720 degree rotation.
Do you have a reference to that experiment? Maybe it's a good idea to implement it in my QM lecture notes :-).
 
vanhees71 said:
Do you have a reference to that experiment? Maybe it's a good idea to implement it in my QM lecture notes :-).
I got that from Sakurai (page 162: Neutron Interferometry Experiment).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
vanhees71 said:
Do you have a reference to that experiment? Maybe it's a good idea to implement it in my QM lecture notes :-).
Theoretical proposal:
Y. Aharonov and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. 158, 1237 (1967)

Experimental realization:
S. A. Werner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1053 (1975)
H. Rauch et al., Phys. Lett. A 54, 425 (1975)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gentzen and PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
11K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K