Skip to main content

Physics IV course sequence · Interactive lesson

Intrinsic spin, spinors and the Pauli matrices

Spin is the angular momentum that survives when you switch off position. Nothing on the sphere carries it, so the state shrinks to a column of two complex numbers and every observable becomes a 2×2 matrix. That small piece of algebra predicts every analyser chain you will build — and it kills the spinning-ball picture.

UPIV-09.06 · Lesson 6 of 9 in this unit. Position is not a completion score.
Starting model: Intrinsic spin, spinors and the Pauli matricesAmplitude and probability for a spin-half prepared along Θ₀ and analysed along Θ, both in the x–z plane. Dashed: the amplitude cos((Θ−Θ₀)/2), zero at 180° and −1 at 360°. Solid: the probability cos²((Θ−Θ₀)/2), back to 1 at 360°. Now Θ − Θ₀ = 90°, amplitude 0.707, probability 0.500.amplitude 0.71 P = 0.50solid: P = cos²((Θ−Θ₀)/2)dashed: amplitude cos((Θ−Θ₀)/2) — period 720°+1−10°360°720°analyser angle Θ
Start with a picture. Change the model in the lab below.
1

Build the model

Angular momentum with nowhere in space to live.

The key idea

Intrinsic spin is an angular momentum a particle carries as an internal property: it obeys the same commutation relations as orbital angular momentum but depends on no coordinate, so its state is a finite column of complex numbers rather than a function of space.

Example. An electron has s = ½, so S² = s(s+1)ħ² = ¾ħ² and |S| = (√3/2)ħ = 9.13 × 10⁻³⁵ J s — yet any single component you measure, along any axis at all, is only ±ħ/2 = ±5.27 × 10⁻³⁵ J s.

The complete physical model and assumptions

The ladder argument never forbade half-integers; the sphere did. From [Sₓ, Sy] = iħSz alone the spectrum is s(s+1)ħ² and mħ with s integer or half-integer, and orbital motion lost the half-integers only because the l = ½ tower cannot be built from normalisable functions of θ and φ. So the algebra leaves room for a degree of freedom with no position representation at all, and Stern-Gerlach, the alkali doublets and the anomalous Zeeman patterns say nature uses one. Take s = ½: the state space has 2s + 1 = 2 dimensions, the state is a spinor χ = (a, b)ᵀ with |a|² + |b|² = 1, and every observable is a 2×2 Hermitian matrix, with S = (ħ/2)σ. The payoff is that the algebra closes completely. σᵢσⱼ = δᵢⱼ + iεᵢⱼₖσₖ forces σᵢ² = 1, so a measurement along any axis whatsoever returns ±ħ/2; S² = ¾ħ² times the identity, so s = ½ labels the particle and is not a quantum number the state can change; and the eigenspinor along any direction is written down in one line of half-angles. The cost is the picture. ⟨S⟩ has length ħ/2 while |S| = √3ħ/2, so no arrow represents the state, and a 2π rotation multiplies a spinor by −1, so its period is 4π. Whatever spin is, it is not a small ball turning.

1Half-integers were never ruled out by the algebra

Run the ladder argument on any triple obeying [Jₓ, Jy] = iħJz. Demanding that the ladder terminate at both ends forces the eigenvalues j(j+1)ħ² and mħ with 2j + 1 rungs, and j comes out integer or half-integer. Orbital angular momentum kept only the integers, and not because e(imφ) must be single-valued — a half-integer m only flips an overall sign, which is unobservable. It kept them because the l = ½ tower fails: L₋ does not annihilate the supposed bottom rung, and lowering again leaves the normalisable functions on the sphere altogether. That veto is a property of the position representation, not of the algebra. A degree of freedom that has no position representation is free to take j = ½ — and the evidence says one exists: two Stern-Gerlach beams from an l = 0 silver atom, doublet lines in sodium, and Zeeman patterns with the wrong number of components.

2Building the Pauli matrices from the ladder

With s = ½ the space has 2s + 1 = 2 dimensions, so take |↑⟩ = (1,0)ᵀ and |↓⟩ = (0,1)ᵀ as the Sz eigenvectors with eigenvalues ±ħ/2. That alone fixes Sz = (ħ/2)diag(1, −1). The other two come from the ladder: S₊|s, m⟩ = ħ√(s(s+1) − m(m+1))|s, m+1⟩, and for s = ½, m = −½ the root is √(¾ + ¼) = 1, so S₊|↓⟩ = ħ|↑⟩ while S₊|↑⟩ = 0. In matrix form S₊ = ħ[[0,1],[0,0]] and S₋ = ħ[[0,0],[1,0]]. Then Sₓ = (S₊ + S₋)/2 = (ħ/2)[[0,1],[1,0]] and Sy = (S₊ − S₋)/2i = (ħ/2)[[0,−i],[i,0]]. Nothing was assumed except the commutators and the dimension: the Pauli matrices are the output of the derivation, not an input to it. Writing S = (ħ/2)σ strips off the units and leaves three dimensionless matrices to work with.

3One identity does the work of a chapter

Everything about a spin-half follows from σᵢσⱼ = δᵢⱼ1 + iεᵢⱼₖσₖ. Set j = i: σᵢ² = 1, so each Pauli matrix has eigenvalues ±1 and every spin component, along every axis, measures ±ħ/2 — no state and no direction gives anything else. Symmetrise: σᵢσⱼ + σⱼσᵢ = 2δᵢⱼ1, so different components anticommute, the sharpest possible incompatibility. Antisymmetrise: [σᵢ, σⱼ] = 2iεᵢⱼₖσₖ, which is [Sₓ, Sy] = iħSz restored. Sum the squares: S² = (ħ²/4)(σₓ² + σy² + σz²) = ¾ħ²1, proportional to the identity, so every spinor is an S² eigenstate and s = ½ is a property of the electron rather than a quantum number of its state. Finally 1, σₓ, σy and σz span all 2×2 Hermitian matrices, so every observable of a spin-half is a1 + b⋅σ and there is nothing else left to find.

4Any axis in closed form, and why the angle is halved

Write n̂ = (sinθ cosφ, sinθ sinφ, cosθ). Then S⋅n̂ = (ħ/2)[[cosθ, sinθ e(−iφ)], [sinθ e(iφ), −cosθ]], whose trace is 0 and determinant −ħ²/4 for every θ and φ — so the eigenvalues are ±ħ/2 on every axis and no direction in space is privileged. Solving for the + eigenvector gives χ₊(n̂) = (cos(θ/2), e(iφ)sin(θ/2))ᵀ. Check it: θ = 90°, φ = 0 returns (1/√2)(1, 1)ᵀ, the +x spinor. Two features matter. First, ⟨S⟩ = χ₊†Sχ₊ = (ħ/2)n̂ exactly, so the mean vector has length ħ/2 and not √3ħ/2; the shortfall is transverse variance, not a shorter arrow. Second, the angle is halved: turn n̂ through θ and the components turn through θ/2, so χ₊ at θ = 2π is −χ₊ at θ = 0. The half-angle is not a convention — it is the whole reason the period is 4π.

5cos²(half the angle) is what an analyser chain counts

Prepare |↑⟩ and analyse along n̂ at angle Θ from z. The amplitude is ⟨χ₊(n̂)|↑⟩ = cos(Θ/2), so P(+) = cos²(Θ/2) = (1 + cosΘ)/2 and P(−) = sin²(Θ/2). In numbers: Θ = 0 gives 1, Θ = 60° gives 0.750, Θ = 90° gives 0.500, Θ = 120° gives 0.250, Θ = 180° gives 0. Now chain three analysers, z then x then z. The x stage splits the beam 50/50, and its +x output — a state that no longer knows anything about z — splits 50/50 again, so a quarter of an initially pure +z beam ends in the −z channel although the x stage removed nothing along z. No assignment of definite values to every axis, fixed in advance and left unchanged by the x stage, reproduces that. Be precise about what it refutes, though: it kills values that pre-exist along all axes and pass through the other measurements undisturbed, but a model in which the x stage resets the hidden values can still match these counts, so this single-particle result is not a Bell test of local hidden variables.

6The 2π sign, the 4π period, and the end of the ball

Expand the rotation operator using (n̂⋅σ)² = 1 and it collapses to U(α, n̂) = cos(α/2)1 − i sin(α/2)(n̂⋅σ). At α = 2π that is −1: every spinor comes back reversed, and only α = 4π restores it. A global sign cannot be measured, but a relative one can — split a neutron beam, rotate the spin in one arm only, and the interference intensity is periodic in 4π of rotation, which is what the 1975 interferometry experiments found. No classical picture survives alongside that. Model the electron as a uniform sphere of the classical electron radius 2.82 × 10⁻¹⁵ m carrying L = ħ/2: the equatorial speed is 5ħ/(4mr) = 5.1 × 10¹⁰ m s⁻¹, about 170c, and keeping it below c would demand a radius above 4.8 × 10⁻¹³ m when experiment bounds the electron below 10⁻¹⁸ m. Spin says how a state transforms under rotations, not how fast anything turns.

2

Key equations

Read the units, assumptions and limits before substituting.

Spin algebra and its spectrum

[Sₓ, Sy] = iħSz (cyclic) · S²|s, m⟩ = s(s+1)ħ²|s, m⟩ · Sz|s, m⟩ = mħ|s, m⟩

Identical to L's algebra, so the ladder result carries over — but with no ∂/∂φ available to veto half-integers.

S carries J s; s = ½ for the electron, proton, neutron and quarks

Spin operators as Pauli matrices

S = (ħ/2)σ · σₓ = [[0,1],[1,0]], σy = [[0,−i],[i,0]], σz = [[1,0],[0,−1]]

Turns operator algebra into 2×2 arithmetic: every spin question becomes a matrix multiplication you can do by hand.

σ is dimensionless, Hermitian, traceless, det = −1, eigenvalues ±1

The Pauli product rule

σᵢσⱼ = δᵢⱼ1 + iεᵢⱼₖσₖ ⇒ (σ⋅a)(σ⋅b) = (a⋅b)1 + iσ⋅(a×b)

Its symmetric part gives σᵢ² = 1, hence ±ħ/2 on every axis; its antisymmetric part regenerates the commutators.

1 is the 2×2 identity; a and b are ordinary c-number vectors

Eigenspinor along an arbitrary axis

χ₊(n̂) = (cos(θ/2), e(iφ)sin(θ/2))ᵀ, with (S⋅n̂)χ₊ = +(ħ/2)χ₊

Any analyser direction without solving a new eigenvalue problem — and it gives ⟨S⟩ = (ħ/2)n̂ exactly.

θ, φ are the polar angles of n̂; χ₋ = (−e(−iφ)sin(θ/2), cos(θ/2))ᵀ

Sequential analysers

P(+n̂ | +ẑ) = |⟨χ₊(n̂)|↑⟩|² = cos²(Θ/2) = (1 + cosΘ)/2

The measurable content of the half-angle: this is what a Stern-Gerlach chain actually counts.

Θ is the angle between the two analyser axes; Θ = 90° gives ½

Rotating a spinor

U(α, n̂) = exp(−iα n̂⋅σ/2) = cos(α/2)1 − i sin(α/2)(n̂⋅σ)

The 4π period. The minus sign is global and hidden — until only one interferometer arm is rotated.

α = 2π gives U = −1; only α = 4π gives U = +1
3

Interactive lab

Predict first. Explore the model. Compare the result.

Explore the model

90 °
0 to 720 °; steps of 15.
0 °
0 to 180 °; steps of 15.

Try this. Set Θ₀ = 0 and drag Θ from 0 to 720°. The solid probability curve is back to 1 at 360°, but the dashed amplitude is −1 there and only returns to +1 at 720° — the 4π period. Then move Θ₀: only the difference Θ − Θ₀ matters.

Live results

AMPLITUDE cos((Θ−Θ₀)/2)
0.707
PROBABILITY P(+n̂)
0.500
P(−n̂)
0.500
RELATIVE ANGLE Θ − Θ₀
90 °

Results follow this lesson’s model and assumptions. Displayed values are rounded.

Interactive Physics IV modelAmplitude and probability for a spin-half prepared along Θ₀ and analysed along Θ, both in the x–z plane. Dashed: the amplitude cos((Θ−Θ₀)/2), zero at 180° and −1 at 360°. Solid: the probability cos²((Θ−Θ₀)/2), back to 1 at 360°. Now Θ − Θ₀ = 90°, amplitude 0.707, probability 0.500.amplitude 0.71 P = 0.50solid: P = cos²((Θ−Θ₀)/2)dashed: amplitude cos((Θ−Θ₀)/2) — period 720°+1−10°360°720°analyser angle Θ
Amplitude and probability for a spin-half prepared along Θ₀ and analysed along Θ, both in the x–z plane. Dashed: the amplitude cos((Θ−Θ₀)/2), zero at 180° and −1 at 360°. Solid: the probability cos²((Θ−Θ₀)/2), back to 1 at 360°. Now Θ − Θ₀ = 90°, amplitude 0.707, probability 0.500.

Predict → change one variable → check

Plan a change before running it. Every other input stays at the saved baseline.

Saved baseline. Analyser angle Θ: 90 °; Prepared direction Θ₀: 0 °

Baseline 90; choose 0 to 720, in steps of 15.
4. Compared with the saved baseline, this result will…

This experiment is kept only while this page is open. It does not change saved course progress.

4

Catch the common trap

The picture that fails is the arrow. "Spin up" does not mean that S points along +z: ⟨S⟩ has length ħ/2 while |S| = √3ħ/2, and ⟨Sₓ⟩ = ⟨Sy⟩ = 0 with ⟨Sₓ²⟩ = ⟨Sy²⟩ = ħ²/4, so the transverse components are undetermined, not zero. Nor does the electron secretly carry a value for every axis waiting to be read off: send a pure +z beam through an x analyser and back into a z analyser and a quarter of it emerges in the −z channel, which no pre-assigned set of components left unchanged by the x analyser can produce. And the ball itself is impossible — matching ħ/2 with a sphere of the classical electron radius needs a surface speed near 170c. What σ describes is how a two-state system transforms under rotation, not what is rotating.

5

Practice & worked examples

3 authored examples. Make an attempt, then reveal the reasoning one step at a time.

EasyExample 1

An electron is in the spinor state χ = (1/√5)(1, 2i)ᵀ written in the Sz basis. Check that it is normalised, find the probabilities of the two Sz outcomes, then compute ⟨Sz⟩ and ⟨Sₓ⟩.

Sketch your answer or reasoning, then compare it with the authored solution. Your writing is not automatically graded or saved.

0 of 4 steps revealed.

MediumExample 2

A beam prepared with Sz = +ħ/2 meets an analyser tilted 60° from z in the x–z plane. Find the probabilities of its two outputs, then send the + output into a z analyser and find the probability of Sz = −ħ/2. What fraction of the original beam ends in that channel, and what is ⟨Sz⟩ for the atoms leaving the tilted analyser's + port?

Sketch your answer or reasoning, then compare it with the authored solution. Your writing is not automatically graded or saved.

0 of 5 steps revealed.

HardExample 3

Model the electron as a uniform solid sphere of the classical electron radius r = 2.82 × 10⁻¹⁵ m and mass m = 9.11 × 10⁻³¹ kg, spinning with angular momentum ħ/2. Find the equatorial speed and compare it with c, then find the radius the sphere would need for that speed to fall below c.

Sketch your answer or reasoning, then compare it with the authored solution. Your writing is not automatically graded or saved.

0 of 6 steps revealed.

6

Quick check

Select an answer and explain it before checking.

A beam of silver atoms is prepared in the Sz = +ħ/2 state. It passes an analyser whose axis lies 45° from z in the x–z plane, and only that analyser's +ħ/2 output is kept. Those atoms then enter a second analyser aligned with z. What fraction of the original beam leaves the second analyser in the Sz = −ħ/2 channel?
7

Review & continue

Intrinsic spin is an angular momentum a particle carries as an internal property: it obeys the same commutation relations as orbital angular momentum but depends on no coordinate, so its state is a finite column of complex numbers rather than a function of space.

  • Explain the relationship without looking at the equation.
  • Check a sign, a unit and a model assumption in your working.
  • Return to the lab or worked example if a step is still unclear.

Extra challenging questions

Connect several ideas, explore supplied data, and compare your reasoning with a worked solution.