MHB Eigenvectors of 2*2 rotation matrix

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a 2x2 rotation matrix. The eigenvalues are identified as λ₁ = e^{iθ} and λ₂ = e^{-iθ}. The eigenvector calculations lead to a system of equations that initially appear contradictory, but it is clarified that they do not contradict due to the properties of complex numbers. When θ = 0, the matrix simplifies to the identity matrix, resulting in a repeated eigenvalue of 1. The inner product of the derived eigenvectors is addressed, emphasizing the need to use the complex conjugate for accurate results.
bugatti79
Messages
786
Reaction score
4
Hi Folks,

I calculate the eigenvalues of \begin{bmatrix}\cos \theta& \sin \theta \\ - \sin \theta & \cos \theta \end{bmatrix} to be \lambda_1=e^{i \theta} and \lambda_2=e^{-i \theta}

for \lambda_1=e^{i \theta}=\cos \theta + i \sin \theta I calculate the eigenvector via A \lambda = \lambda V as

\begin{bmatrix}\cos -(\cos \theta+ i \sin \theta) & \sin \theta \\ - \sin \theta & \cos -(\cos \theta+ i \sin \theta)\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}v_1\\ v_2\end{bmatrix}=\vec{0}

which reduces to

- i \sin \theta v_1+ \sin \theta v_2=0
-\sin \theta v_1-i \sin \theta v_2=0

I am stumped at this point...how shall I proceed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bugatti79 said:
Hi Folks,

I calculate the eigenvalues of \begin{bmatrix}\cos \theta& \sin \theta \\ - \sin \theta & \cos \theta \end{bmatrix} to be \lambda_1=e^{i \theta} and \lambda_2=e^{-i \theta}

for \lambda_1=e^{i \theta}=\cos \theta + i \sin \theta I calculate the eigenvector via A \lambda = \lambda V as

\begin{bmatrix}\cos -(\cos \theta+ i \sin \theta) & \sin \theta \\ - \sin \theta & \cos -(\cos \theta+ i \sin \theta)\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}v_1\\ v_2\end{bmatrix}=\vec{0}

which reduces to

- i \sin \theta v_1+ \sin \theta v_2=0
-\sin \theta v_1-i \sin \theta v_2=0

I am stumped at this point...how shall I proceed?
Divide those equations by $\sin\theta$ (assuming that $\sin\theta\ne0$).
 
Opalg said:
Divide those equations by $\sin\theta$ (assuming that $\sin\theta\ne0$).

Then we get

- i v_1+ v_2=0 (1)
- v_1-i v_2=0 (2)

v_2=i v_1 from 1

v_2=-v_1/i from 2

1) These contradict? How is the eigenvector obtained from this?

2) what if we have a situation where \theta=0? Then \sin \theta=0
 
bugatti79 said:
Then we get

- i v_1+ v_2=0 (1)
- v_1-i v_2=0 (2)

v_2=i v_1 from 1

v_2=-v_1/i from 2

1) These contradict? How is the eigenvector obtained from this?

2) what if we have a situation where \theta=0? Then \sin \theta=0
1) They don't contradict, because $i^2=-1$ and so $-1/i = i$.

2) If $\theta=0$ then the matrix becomes $\begin{bmatrix}1&0 \\0&1 \end{bmatrix}$ (the identity matrix), with a repeated eigenvalue $1$.
 
Opalg said:
1) They don't contradict, because $i^2=-1$ and so $-1/i = i$.

2) If $\theta=0$ then the matrix becomes $\begin{bmatrix}1&0 \\0&1 \end{bmatrix}$ (the identity matrix), with a repeated eigenvalue $1$.

1) Ok, so the eigenvector for

\lambda_1=e^{i \theta} is \begin{bmatrix}1\\ i\end{bmatrix}

and

\lambda_2=e^{-i \theta} is \begin{bmatrix}1\\ 1/i\end{bmatrix}

To show these 2 vectors are orthogonal I get the inner product

<v_1,v_2>=(1*1)+(i*1/i)\ne 0 but I expect 0...?
 
bugatti79 said:
1) Ok, so the eigenvector for

\lambda_1=e^{i \theta} is \begin{bmatrix}1\\ i\end{bmatrix}

and

\lambda_2=e^{-i \theta} is \begin{bmatrix}1\\ 1/i\end{bmatrix}

To show these 2 vectors are orthogonal I get the inner product

<v_1,v_2>=(1*1)+(i*1/i)\ne 0 but I expect 0...?
The definition of the inner product of two complex vectors is that you have to take the complex conjugate of the second one: if $x = ( x_1,x_2)$ and $y = (y_1,y_2)$ then $\langle x,y\rangle = x_1\overline{y_1} + x_2\overline{y_2}.$
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K