I encountered a problem where I had to use $\textbf{n}\cdot{\textbf{S}}$. It was found to be:

enter image description here

What does it mean physically, that the antidiagonal of this matrix is 0, for any $\textbf{n}$?


All spin matrices for integer spin j have this property in the spherical basis (not in the Cartesian one, of course).

It is easy to see that. They are $(2j+1)\times (2j+1)$-dimensional matrices.

$S_z$ is diagonal, but its central eigenvalue is 0 (for integer spins).

$S_+$ is a raising operator by one, so only the first parallel above the diagonal is nonzero; however, it has length 2 j, so it does not "shadow" the central diagonal 0, and so the second, third, ... parallels vanish, yielding 0s. The analog argument holds for $S_-$, and hence the linear combinations of raising and lowering operators.

You are done.

As indicated, this is a fluke property of the spherical basis. In the Cartesian basis, you'd have nonzero antidiagonals for $S_y$. I don't see much physics in a basis-dependent statement, then.

  • $\begingroup$ I don't see much physics in a basis-dependent statement, then. Well, the spherical basis isn't a basis whatever. It's a basis of eigenvectors of a component of $\vec S$. $\endgroup$ – Elio Fabri Mar 27 at 16:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Elio Fabri. Correct. A basis then defines the orientation of operators (here, matrices) that act on it, and hence defines a basis for these matrices. Changing the basis of the vectors similarity-transforms the matrices to the corresponding new basis. So, then, contrast $S_z$ in the spherical basis to $L_z$ in the Cartesian basis, as in the first week of angular momentum treatments. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Mar 27 at 16:33

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.