What is the Mathematical Definition of the Pauli Vector?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the mathematical definition and interpretation of the Pauli vector in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the notation used and the nature of its components. Participants explore the implications of combining matrix elements with unit vectors, considering both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the mathematical validity of defining the product \(\sigma_i e_i\) given that \(\sigma_i\) and \(e_i\) are elements of different natures.
  • Another participant suggests that the combination of the matrix and vector may be understood through concepts like product groups and product rings, drawing parallels to other mathematical structures.
  • A different participant argues that the notation for the Pauli vector is shorthand and potentially misleading, indicating that it does not represent a true vector decomposition.
  • One participant agrees with the notion that the notation is misleading and emphasizes its role as a shorthand for simplifying expressions in quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant draws a comparison to relativity, noting that similar shorthand notation exists with \(\sigma_{\mu}\), which is not a true 4-vector but serves a useful purpose.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the nature of the Pauli vector notation, with some agreeing that it is merely a shorthand while others emphasize its misleading aspects. No consensus is reached regarding the mathematical implications of combining different types of elements.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential for confusion due to the notation used, indicating that it may not accurately reflect the mathematical relationships involved. There is also mention of the need for clarity in definitions and the limitations of shorthand notation in conveying complex concepts.

Grufey
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Hello

I'm reading my old notes of QM, I found the definition of Pauli vector, as follow

\vec{\sigma}=\sigma_1 e_x+\sigma_2e_y + \sigma_3 e_z

Where e_x. e_y and e_z are unit vectors.

So, here is my question. \sigma_i and e_i are elements of different nature. How can we define the product \sigma_ie_i??

I understand the idea, ok. But, mathematically don't seem right

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Although I am not certain what is going on, I will try. If I understand correctly, you are wondering why we can put the matrix and the vector next to each other. I think the idea is similar to product groups and product rings, which are very simple and common constructions where the behavior in one component has little to do with the behavior in the other component. For instance the product of the integers with the rationals, where addition is defined by (n,p)+(m,q)=(n+m,p+q). You might consider a product ring M x M', where M is space of 2x2 matrices, and M' is space of 3x3 matrices. If I did not get your question right, I hope this helps give ideas on how you might reword or fill us in on more about the definitions.
 
It is actually a shorthand (and misleading) notation. The "vector" you mention always appears in either a cross or a dot product in which the <units> are "coupled" with other units, this time real ones, like for momentum operators. So it's not a decomposition of a vector with respect to a basis (i,j,k or ex, ey, ez), it's just a handy notation which shortens some long expressions, i.e. i/o writing p_x \sigma_x + p_y \sigma_y + p_z \sigma_z one writes \displaystyle{\vec{\sigma}\cdot \vec{p}}.
 
Sorry I was too busy this week and I could not reply before.

That's what I thought, it's only a notation. misleading notation.

Regards
 
The same thing happens in relativity, where you have the \sigma_{\mu}. It's no real 4-vector (1-form), just a shorthand notation which is useful, but can be misleading.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
92
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K