Stern Gerlach term in the Pauli Equation

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the origin of the Stern-Gerlach term in the Pauli equation, specifically questioning its emergence from the Pauli vector identity. The user expresses confusion over why the term appears when applying the identity, believing it should not exist. They detail their calculations, highlighting that the momentum operator does not commute with the vector potential, which leads to the presence of the Stern-Gerlach term. The conversation emphasizes that vector calculus identities do not always apply to vector operators in quantum mechanics. The user also considers the possibility of a sign error in their calculations.
Mantella
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Where does the Stern Gerlach term in the Pauli equation come from? Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_equation. Following wikipedia's steps the Stern Gerlach term pops out when you apply the Pauli vector identity. I don't understand this step. It seems as if there should be no Stern Gerlach term.

Here are my steps starting with the Pauli vector identity,
(\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})(\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot \boldsymbol{b}) = \boldsymbol{a} \cdot \boldsymbol{b} + i\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot (\boldsymbol{a} \times \boldsymbol{b})

(\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot (\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A}))^2 = (\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot (\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A}))(\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot (\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A})) = (\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A})^2 + i\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot ((\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A}) \times (\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A}))

Shouldn't

\boldsymbol{v} \times \boldsymbol{v} = \boldsymbol{0}

and

(\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot (\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A}))^2 = (\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A})^2

I did it out in individual components as well, and came to the same conclusion. What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You almost get zero, but you end up with one term because momentum does not commute with the vector potential in general.

<br /> i\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot ((\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A}) \times (\boldsymbol{p} - e\boldsymbol{A})) = -\hbar e \epsilon_{jkl}\sigma_j \partial_k A_l = - e \hbar \mathbf{\sigma} \cdot \mathbf{B}<br />

I used p = -i hbar ∇. If you look back over your work when you did the calculation by components, you'll probably find the step where you moved the momentum operator past the vector potential.
 
Note that unlike in conventional vector algebra, in this algebra of vector operators
##\mathbf{p}\times \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{A} \times \mathbf{p} \neq 0 ##

$$[\mathbf{A} \times \mathbf{p}]_i = \sum_{jk} \epsilon_{ijk}A_jp_k = \sum_{jk} \epsilon_{ijk}p_kA_j - [p_k, A_j] = \sum_{jk} \epsilon_{ijk}p_kA_j +i\hbar \frac{\partial A_j}{\partial x_k} $$ $$\mathbf{p}\times \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{A} \times \mathbf{p}= i\hbar \nabla \times \mathbf{A} $$

An important takeaway from this is that identities from vector calculus will not always be true for vector operators.

Edit: Have I made a sign error?
 
Last edited:
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K