See this mathstackexchange answer.
Let
In most cases,
Thus, spinors are not elements of the spin-group. Regarding spinors as such is an abuse of notation which one should avoid.
One frequently generalizes this definition of spinors to include not just vectors (in a suitable vector space
which transform, under local change of coordinates, according to the spinor representation
Edit. The nicest detailed treatment of spinors that I know, from the mathematical viewpoint, is in the book:
1. _Lawson, H. Blaine jun.; Michelsohn, Marie-Louise_, Spin geometry, Princeton Mathematical Series. 38. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. xii, 427 p. (1989). ZBL0688.57001.
Specifically: Chapter I, sections 1-6 (explaining spin groups and their representations); Chapter II, section 1, 3, finally defining spinor fields. (This is before you get to the Dirac operators; Dirac operators are covered in sections 4-7 of Chapter II.)
According to this eigenchris video, they are elements of the projective complex line
Spinor space can be thought as the set of quantum states of a two-level quantum system, like the spin of the electron.
In other contexts, spinors are, simply,
... To be developed...
But physicists also refer to spinors as section of a spinor bundle. They transform under the spin group.
Related: Pauli matrices.
Another definition: element of minimal left ideal in a Clifford algebra (here
From this eigenchris video.
There are also the Dirac spinors, related to the Dirac equation.
Let's suppose that we feed a Stern-Gerlach machine with a beam of electrons prepared in a specific state; we will get two outcomes with different frequencies (probabilities). These outcomes and their probabilities are encoded in a vector of a Hilbert space. When I rotate the electron gun with a different spatial orientation (in our everyday 3D space), the probabilities change, suggesting that the electron is in a different state, another vector of the Hilbert space. However, the angle formed by this vector compared to the original one is half of the spatial rotation. We can say that on the 3D vectors of everyday life we are applying an element of SO(3), and on the Hilbert space, we are applying an element of SU(2), which is its covering space. The question is that starting from the initial orientation, I can reach the final orientation in many different ways. For example, I can stay as I am, which is a rotation of 0º, and that implies a 0º rotation in the electron's internal state; or I can rotate the electron gun 360º around any axis, which would mean having rotated the electron's internal state by 180º. Although the gun is in the same position and orientation as before, internally the electron is in a different state. This won't be noticeable in a simple experiment because global phases don't show, but it could influence an interference experiment.
How do those experiments roughly go?
(see in calibre the pdf: "Spin rotation subtleties, Spin entanglement- experiments phase shift". See also this video of Leonard Susskind)
What happens if we take the spin wavefunction of a particle, break it into two pieces, and let it interfere with itself? How can you do this? Use a classic two-slit experiment. You can observe strange interference effects. Imagine the following peculiar device:
The particle starts in the spin-up state
This is the classic description of interference, where we superpose two quantum states and see if they constructively or destructively interfere. But what are the quantum states for the two paths?
and
where
Now let's suppose that
So
How many particles get through? ZERO!
This phenomenon has been experimentally observed in what are now classic experiments with neutrons.
See H. Rauch et al., Phys. Lett. 64A, 425 (1975) and S. A. Werner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1053 (1975).
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
Author of the notes: Antonio J. Pan-Collantes
INDEX: