Representations of Symmetry Operators

stone
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
For spin 1/2 particles, I know how to write the representations of the symmetry operators
for instance T=i\sigma^{y}K (time reversal operator)
C_{3}=exp(i(\pi/3)\sigma^{z}) (three fold rotation symmetry) etc.

My question is how do we generalize this to, let's say, a basis of four component spinor with spins localized on two sites a and b
(|a, up>, |a, down>, |b, up>, |b, down>)^{T}

Is it a direct product i\sigma^{y}K \otimes i\sigma^{y}K
Or i\sigma^{y}K \otimes I_{2 \times 2}

Or is it something else?
It would be wonderful if you could point to any references.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stone, No generalization is necessary. Using tensor products would be appropriate if you were talking about a system with several particles, but my understanding is that you have just one.

The Pauli matrices you've written, σy and so forth, act on the particle's spin coordinate. They do not affect |a> and |b>. Furthermore the antilinear operator K may be defined so as to also leave the basis states |a> and |b> unchanged, and therefore its only effect will be to complex conjugate the coefficients. That is, if you have a state |ψ> = α|a> + β|b>, then K|ψ> = α*|a> + β*|b>.
 
Thanks for the reply.
Yes the number of particles is still one, but the basis is now 4x4 instead of the usual 2x2, then we need to represent the symmetry operators in terms of 4x4 matrices.
I am still not sure how to go about doing this.
 
Some more help would be appreciated.
 
Ok, I yield! If you want to represent your four states as a tensor product of two 2-spaces, S ⊗ T say, then an operator R that acts only on the spin part will be of the form R ⊗ I.

I have a couple of reasons for resisting this, one is (IMHO) it's a rather cumbersome way of stating a simple fact, namely that the rotation operator acts on just the spin states. For a more general example, in which instead of |a> and |b> you had states |l m> say, which were also affected by rotations, you'd have to write the action as (S ⊗ I) ⊕ (I ⊗ L).
 
thanks for yielding!
I understand now.
 
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...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top