Timeline for Why Pauli called the swap matrix $σ_x$? Why not $σ_y$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 11:23 | comment | added | pll04 | @Frobenius Then what is the justification that this expression satisfies the bijection? And why was this form chosen for the Pauli matrices? | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 11:19 | comment | added | Voulkos | @pll04 : Νo uniqueness is mentioned. | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 11:01 | comment | added | pll04 | @Frobenius Can you explain what is the justification of this particular form of the Hermitian traceless matrix R? Why is that this expression in particular satisfies the bijection and not any other? | |
| May 1, 2020 at 11:57 | comment | added | user2723984 | well yes of course, it's just a matter of choosing a basis for a space. Everything that matters should be basis independent anyway. The most compelling argument anyway to call that matrix $\sigma_x$ is that $e^{i\theta\sigma_x}$ is a rotation around the $x$ axis | |
| May 1, 2020 at 11:06 | comment | added | y ing | @user2723984 To be honest, they both seem strange to me... I think the present form is "a" correct one, but not "the" only solution. I mean, if Pauli switched the right-up and left-lower terms of the matrix shown in equation (01), the formula would be different. But the physical observable should be the same. Am I correct? | |
| May 1, 2020 at 7:08 | comment | added | user2723984 | @ying out of curiosity, why did $\sigma_y$ seem more natural to you? | |
| May 1, 2020 at 6:52 | history | edited | Voulkos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 567 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2020 at 6:47 | comment | added | y ing | Thank you so much!! It's crystal clear! | |
| May 1, 2020 at 6:47 | vote | accept | y ing | ||
| May 1, 2020 at 6:28 | history | answered | Voulkos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |