Sakurai - Constructing 2x2 matrix from scalars?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on constructing a 2x2 matrix using scalars as defined in Sakurai's 2nd Edition book on Quantum Mechanics. The matrix is expressed as X = a_{0} + \overline{\sigma} \bullet \overline{a}, which initially appears nonsensical to some readers. However, it is clarified that the correct formulation is X = a_0 I + Σ a_i σ_i, where I is the 2x2 identity matrix and σ_i are the Pauli matrices. This understanding resolves confusion regarding the notation and the nature of the matrix X.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Mechanics concepts, particularly matrix representations.
  • Familiarity with Pauli matrices and their properties.
  • Knowledge of matrix operations, including dot products and scalar multiplication.
  • Basic grasp of linear algebra, specifically 2x2 matrices.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties and applications of Pauli matrices in quantum mechanics.
  • Learn about matrix representations of quantum states and operators.
  • Explore the concept of trace in relation to matrices and its significance in quantum mechanics.
  • Review the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics as presented in Sakurai's 2nd Edition.
USEFUL FOR

Students of quantum mechanics, physicists, and anyone looking to deepen their understanding of matrix formulations in quantum theory.

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   Reactions: CosmicBob
Oh my gosh... that helps a LOT. Thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
11K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K