I found this problem and need some help. It is given:

$$ \sigma_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} $$

$$ \sigma_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -i \\ i & 0 \end{pmatrix} $$

$$ \sigma_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix} $$

These are the Pauli matrices.

Furthermore I have:

$$h \in \mathbb{R}^3$$ $$h \sigma := h_1 \sigma_1 + h_2 \sigma_2 + h_3 \sigma_3$$


$$\mathcal{su}(2) := \lbrace A \in M(2,\mathbb{C}) | A = h \cdot \sigma, h \in \mathbb{R}^3\rbrace$$

is a vector space.

Now I have a scalar product given by

$$\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle_{\mathcal{su}(2)}: \mathcal{su}(2) \times \mathcal{su}(2) \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $$ $$\langle A, B\rangle_{\mathcal{su}(2)} = \frac{1}{2} trace (AB)$$

I got this and now I want to show, that

$$\phi: \mathbb{R}^3 \rightarrow \mathcal{su}(2)$$ $$h \mapsto h \cdot \sigma$$

is an isometric isomorphism

An isometric isomorphism has to be bijectiv, continous, the inverse has to be continous and the norm must be retained.

But how can I show it? I need some help!

  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean exactly by direct calculation. How do I start? $\endgroup$ – Samuel Jun 14 '14 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ This can hardly be true, as $\dim U(2)=4$. Don't you mean $SU(2)$ (or something related)? $\endgroup$ – Peter Franek Jun 14 '14 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ @ Peter Franek: You are right! I fixed it. $\endgroup$ – Samuel Jun 14 '14 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ Now that it became the Lie algebra, shouldn't you multiply all those matrices by $i$? It seems to me that $su(2)$ should be skew-hermitian matrices.. $\endgroup$ – Peter Franek Jun 14 '14 at 20:29
  • $\begingroup$ I am still trying to solve that problem. Is there anybody who can help me? $\endgroup$ – Samuel Jun 15 '14 at 7:40

If you define $su(2)$ like this, in other words, the span of those Pauli matrices, you get the vector space of all hermitian matrices with trace $0$. (It is more common to define $su(2)$ as the set of all anti-hermitian matrices with zero trace, but let's skip this for the moment.) The map $\phi$ is clearly linear and its inverse $\phi^{-1}$ is $$\begin{pmatrix}a & b+ci \\ b-ci & -a\end{pmatrix}\mapsto (b,-c,a),$$ so $\phi$ is a linear isomorphism. It is an isometry because the three Pauli matrices form an orthonormal basis under the given scalar product (check that $(1/2) Tr(\sigma_i\,\sigma_j)=\delta_{ij}$) and if a linear map maps an orthonormal basis $\{e_1, e_2, e_3\}$ to an orthonormal basis $\{\sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma_3\}$, it is an isometry.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer! But I still did not get the point. Up to know I consulted several books to understand your answer. I need to know where $\phi$ and $\phi^{-1}$ is coming from. I do not see it from what I have given. And how can I check that $(1/2) tr (\sigma_i \sigma_j) = \delta_{ij}$. Is it the same as $(1/2) tr (AB) = \delta_{ij}$?. Well I calculated $(1/2) tr (\sigma_i \sigma_j) = \delta_{ij}$ and my results are always zero. Is this right? Thank you a lot! $\endgroup$ – Samuel Jun 15 '14 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ You defined $\phi$ in the title, right? And you defined $\sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma_3$. If you know how to multiply matrices and compute the trace, you can easily check that $(1/2) Tr(\sigma_1 \,\sigma_1)=1$, $(1/2) Tr(\sigma_1\,\sigma_2)=0$, $(1/2) Tr(\sigma_1\,\sigma_3)=0$, $(1/2) Tr(\sigma_2\,\sigma_2)=1$ etc, so $\{\sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma_3\}$ is an orthonormal basis of the space $su(2)$ that you defined how you defined it. Then you only need to know that if a linear map maps $\{(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\}$ in $R^3$ to an orthonormal basis of the target space, the map is an isometry. $\endgroup$ – Peter Franek Jun 15 '14 at 17:51

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.