There's something I don't think I quite understand about spin and how it acts a generator of rotations. I'll start with quickly going over what I(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); dounderstand. Suppose you want to do an infinitesimal rotation around the z-axis on some state:

[itex]

\def\ket#1{\left | #1 \right \rangle}

\ket{\psi '} = (1 - \frac{i\epsilon _z J_z}{\hbar})\ket{\psi}

[/itex]

Now, if the wavefunction is just a scalar, then projecting on the coordinate basis gives us:

[itex]

\psi '(x,y,z) = (1 - \frac{i\epsilon _z J_z}{\hbar})\psi (x,y,z)

[/itex]

and so, as usual, we can do a finite rotation of [itex]\phi[/itex] around the z-axis by breaking it down into infinitesimal rotations and composing them, giving the relation:

[itex]

\psi '(x,y,z) = e^{-i \phi L_z / \hbar}\psi (x,y,z)

[/itex]

Now, because we know what this operator does, we don't actually have to expand the exponential. We can just (passively) rotate the coordinates:

[tex]

\begin{pmatrix}

x' \\

y'

\end{pmatrix} =

\begin{pmatrix}

\cos\phi & +\sin\phi\\

-\sin\phi & \cos\phi

\end{pmatrix}

\begin{pmatrix}

x \\

y

\end{pmatrix} = R^{-1}(\phi)

\begin{pmatrix}

x \\

y

\end{pmatrix}

[/tex]

Giving:

[tex]

\psi '(x,y,z) = \psi (x\cos\phi + y\sin\phi,-x\sin\phi + y\cos\phi,z)

[/tex]

So far, so good. Now, if ##\ket{\psi}## actually requires a spinor to describe the wavefunction, [itex]\ket{\psi} \rightarrow \begin{pmatrix}

\psi _+(x,y,z) \\

\psi _-(x,y,z)

\end{pmatrix}[/itex] then ##J_z = L_z + S_z## and the act of rotating the ket has two effects: a passive rotation of the coordinate system and a shuffling together of the two wavefunction components. So, we repeat the exercise we went through for ##L_z##, derive the Pauli spin matrices from the commutators, etc., eventually finding that:

$$

e^{-i \phi S_z / \hbar} =

\begin{pmatrix}

\cos(\phi /2) - i \sin(\phi /2) & 0\\

0 & \cos(\phi /2) + i \sin(\phi /2)

\end{pmatrix}

$$

What I don't get is how this makes any sense. I mean, I can follow all the steps in the derivation, I just don't get the final result. Why isn't the overall rotation due to spin just given by the matrix ##R(\phi)## above? In other words, taking into account both ##L_z## and ##S_z##, why isn't the rotated spinor given by:

$$

\begin{align}

\begin{pmatrix}

\psi _+ '(\vec{r}) \\

\psi _- '(\vec{r})

\end{pmatrix} &= R(\phi)

\begin{pmatrix}

\psi _+ (R^{-1}(\phi)(\vec{r})) \\

\psi _- (R^{-1}(\phi)(\vec{r}))

\end{pmatrix} \\ &=

\begin{pmatrix}

(\cos\phi) \psi _+ (x\cos\phi + y\sin\phi,-x\sin\phi + y\cos\phi,z) - (\sin\phi) \psi _- (x\cos\phi + y\sin\phi,-x\sin\phi + y\cos\phi,z) \\

(\sin\phi) \psi _+ (x\cos\phi + y\sin\phi,-x\sin\phi + y\cos\phi,z) + (\cos\phi) \psi _- (x\cos\phi + y\sin\phi,-x\sin\phi + y\cos\phi,z)

\end{pmatrix}

\end{align}

$$

That's what rotating somethingdoes, so why do spinors behave differently?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Understanding spin, spinors, and rotations

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**