2
$\begingroup$

I've been reading Ballentine's Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development and a statement made in Chapter 3 has been puzzling for me.

In Chapter 3 of his book, Ballentine derives the kinematics and dynamics of quantum mechanics through Gallilean spacetime symmetries. In deriving the dynamics for a particle with spin, he has this to say (in the following $\mathbf{S}$ is the 3-vector of spin operators):

The only function of $\mathbf{S}$ which is a 3-vector is a multiple of $\mathbf{S}$. [We have that $\mathbf{S}\times\mathbf{S} = i\mathbf{S}$ so no new vector operator can be formed by taking higher powers of $\mathbf{S}$.]

Likewise, he makes the same statement about scalar functions of $\mathbf{S}$, where he claims that the only scalar functions of $\mathbf{S}$ are multiples of $\mathbf{S}\cdot \mathbf{S}$.

In what sense are the only vector functions of $\mathbf{S}$ given by multiples of $\mathbf{S}$? More generally, why does Ballentine claim that the only functions of $\mathbf{S}$ which are 3-vectors themselves have to be given by cross-products of $\mathbf{S}$? Isn't it conceivable that we have some more general function of $\mathbf{S}$ which can also be a 3-vector? Likewise, why does he claim that the only scalar function of $\mathbf{S}$ has to be given by the dot product? Even without resorting to arbitrary scalar functions of $\mathbf{S}$, wouldn't any inner product serve as an appropriate scalar function of $\mathbf{S}$?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Any (analytical) function $f(x)$ can be written as a Taylor expansion,

$$ f(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k x^k $$

As you see, in this expansion, only powers of $x$ and some constants appear.

If we want to build a function of $\mathbf{S}$ which gives us a vector, the only way we can do it using only $\mathbf{S}$ is taking its vector product with himself, things like $\mathbf{S}\times\mathbf{S}$ or $(\mathbf{S}\times\mathbf{S})\times\mathbf{S}$, etc. But at the end of the day, after computing all this products, you will get a constant times $\mathbf{S}$, because $\mathbf{S}\times\mathbf{S}=i\mathbf{S}$.

On the other hand, the only scalar that you can build using only $\mathbf{S}$ is its scalar product with himself. Another combination, for example $3S_x+2S_y$ is not a scalar, because when you transform the coordinates, the quantity changes. So, in the Taylor expansion you will only have powers of $\mathbf{S}\cdot\mathbf{S}$.

Well, of course you could have something like $\mathbf{S}\cdot[\mathbf{S}\times(\mathbf{S}\times\mathbf{S})]$ and more complicated things, but is easy to see that this just gives $\mathbf{S}\cdot\mathbf{S}$.

What I don't see right now is why the most general function is a multiple of the scalar product. Maybe some vectorial relations allow us to use the vectorial product formula to reduce the powers of the scalar product.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.