Sakurai - Constructing 2x2 matrix from scalars?

Adoniram
Messages
93
Reaction score
6
Hello all, I am beginning a course in QM with Sakurai's 2nd Edition book on QM. In one of our problems, he defines a matrix as the sum of a scalar and a dot product... This seems like nonsense to me, but he uses the same notation in the next problem, so I am guessing this is some unorthodox notation he uses. Can someone please enlighten me how to construct a 2X2 matrix from this definition?

X = a_{o} + \overline{\sigma} \bullet \overline{a}

(btw, the problem is not to construct the matrix. The problem is 1.2 from the 2nd edition if you want to look it up, and involved relating the scalars to the trace of X. If I can define X, I can do the rest)

Anyway, to me it looks like X is a scalar itself, not a 2X2 matrix, but allegedly it's a matrix... My only guess is that he's using some bizarre rule where Det(X) = X, but again, that's nonsense... Help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's even worse than you think, since ##\vec{\sigma}## is actually a vector of matrices!

What it means, using correct mathematics, is
$$
X = a_0 \mathbf{1} + \sum_{i=1}^3 a_i \mathbf{\sigma}_i
$$
where ##\mathbf{1}## is the ##(2 \times 2)## identity matrix and ##\mathbf{\sigma}_i## the Pauli matrices
$$
\mathbf{\sigma}_1 = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right)
$$
$$
\mathbf{\sigma}_2 = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & -i \\ i & 0 \end{array} \right)
$$
$$
\mathbf{\sigma}_3 = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array} \right)
$$
 
  • Like
Likes CosmicBob
Oh my gosh... that helps a LOT. Thank you!
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top