General form for 2 x 2 unitary matrices

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmycricket
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form General Matrices
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
27 replies · 15K views
jimmycricket
Messages
115
Reaction score
2
I'm trying to show that any unitary matrix may be written in the form [itex]\begin{pmatrix}e^{i\alpha_1}\cos{\theta} & -e^{i\alpha_2}\sin{\theta}\\ e^{i\alpha_3}\sin{\theta} & e^{i\alpha_4}\cos{\theta}\end{pmatrix}[/itex]

Writing the general form of a unitary matrix as
[itex]U=\begin{pmatrix} u_{11} & u_{12}\\ u_{21} & u_{22}\end{pmatrix}[/itex]

gives

[itex]U^{\dagger}U=<br /> \begin{pmatrix}u_{11}^* & u_{21}^*\\u_{12}^* & u_{22}^*\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} u_{11} & u_{12}\\ u_{21} & u_{22}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0\\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}[/itex]

[itex]\Longrightarrow |u_{11}|^2+|u_{21}|^2=1 \:\:,\:\: |u_{12}|^2 + |u_{22}|^2=1\\<br /> <br /> \Longrightarrow |u_{11}|=\cos(\theta) \:\:,\:\: |u_{21}|=\sin(\theta) \:\:,\:\: |u_{12}|=\cos(\varphi) \:\:,\:\: |u_{22}|=\sin(\varphi)[/itex]
for some [itex]\theta , \varphi[/itex]

I'm not really sure where to go from here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jimmycricket said:
I'm trying to show that any unitary matrix may be written in the form [itex]\begin{pmatrix}e^{i\alpha_1}\cos{\theta} & -e^{i\alpha_2}\sin{\theta}\\ e^{i\alpha_3}\sin{\theta} & e^{i\alpha_4}\cos{\theta}\end{pmatrix}[/itex]

Writing the general form of a unitary matrix as
[itex]U=\begin{pmatrix} u_{11} & u_{12}\\ u_{21} & u_{22}\end{pmatrix}[/itex]

gives

[itex]U^{\dagger}U=<br /> \begin{pmatrix}u_{11}^* & u_{21}^*\\u_{12}^* & u_{22}^*\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} u_{11} & u_{12}\\ u_{21} & u_{22}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0\\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}[/itex]

[itex]\Longrightarrow |u_{11}|^2+|u_{21}|^2=1 \:\:,\:\: |u_{12}|^2 + |u_{22}|^2=1\\<br /> <br /> \Longrightarrow |u_{11}|=\cos(\theta) \:\:,\:\: |u_{21}|=\sin(\theta) \:\:,\:\: |u_{12}|=\cos(\varphi) \:\:,\:\: |u_{22}|=\sin(\varphi)[/itex]
for some [itex]\theta , \varphi[/itex]

I'm not really sure where to go from here.

You have so far only used the conditions on the diagonal. You need to also fulfill the off-diagonal elements equal to zero.

Suggestion: Call ##|u_{22}| =\cos\varphi## instead of the 12 element. It makes no difference but will simplify your math slightly.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jimmycricket
Ok so for the orthogonal elements:
[itex]u_{11}^*u_{12}+u_{21}^*u_{22}=0[/itex]
[itex]u_{12}^*u_{11}+u_{22}^*u_{21}=0[/itex]
 
[itex]\cos(\theta)\sin(\varphi)+\sin(\theta)\cos(\varphi)=0[/itex]
using your suggestion of [itex]u_{22}=\cos(\varphi)[/itex]
 
jimmycricket said:
[itex]\cos(\theta)\sin(\varphi)+\sin(\theta)\cos(\varphi)=0[/itex]
using your suggestion of [itex]u_{22}=\cos(\varphi)[/itex]

Well, almost, you forgot the phases. Once you have taken them into account, I suggest using some trigonometric identities.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jimmycricket
After using the product formula and some simplification I get

[itex]\frac{1}{2}\big{[}\sin(\theta+\varphi)(e^{i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}+e^{i(\alpha_3+\alpha_4)})+\sin(\theta-\varphi)(e^{i(\alpha_3+\alpha_4)}-e^{i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)})\big{]}=0[/itex]
 
In addition to adding the must-equal-zero-off-diagonal constraints, I recommend breaking ##|\mu_x|^2## into ##(a_x + b_x i)(a_x - b_x i)##.

Alternatively, you could take the approach of "Well, each column and row must have their 2-norm equal to 1. So if topleft has squared amplitude |a|=x then bottom-left and top-right must be |b|=|c|=1-x...".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jimmycricket
Heres everything I've written up now. Does this look ok?

[itex]U=\left(\!\begin{array}{cc}u_{11} & u_{12}\\u_{21} & u_{22}\end{array}\!\right)[/itex]

By unitarity we have

[itex]U^{\dagger}U=\left(\!\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}^* & u_{21}^*\\u_{12}^* & u_{22}^*\end{array}\!\right)<br /> \left(\!\begin{array}{cc}u_{11} & u_{12}\\u_{21} & u_{22}\end{array}\!\right)=\left(\!\begin{array}{cc}1 & 0\\0 & 1\end{array}\!\right)[/itex]

[tex]\Longrightarrow |u_{11}|^2+|u_{21}|^2=1 \:\:,\:\: |u_{12}|^2 + |u_{22}|^2=1[/tex]

[tex]\Longrightarrow |u_{11}|=\cos(\theta) \:\:,\:\: |u_{21}|=\sin(\theta) \:\:,\:\: |u_{12}|=\sin(\varphi) \:\:,\:\: |u_{22}|=\cos(\varphi)[/tex]
[tex]UU^{\dagger}=<br /> \left(\!\begin{array}{cc}u_{11} & u_{12}\\u_{21} & u_{22}\end{array}\!\right)\left(\!\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}^* & u_{21}^*\\u_{12}^* & u_{22}^*\end{array}\!\right)=\left(\!\begin{array}{cc}1 & 0\\0 & 1\end{array}\!\right)[/tex]
[tex]\Longrightarrow |u_{11}|^2+|u_{12}|^2=1 \:\:,\:\: |u_{21}|^2+|u_{22}|^2=1.[/tex]
From these relations we get
[tex]\cos^2(\theta)+\sin^2(\varphi)=1 \:\:,\:\: \sin^2(\theta)+\cos^2(\varphi)=1[/tex]

[tex]\Longrightarrow \cos^2(\theta)-\sin^2(\theta)=\cos^2(\varphi)-\sin^2(\varphi)=0[/tex]
[tex]\Longleftrightarrow \frac{1}{2}\big{[}(1+\cos(2\theta))-(1-\cos(2\theta))\big{]}=\frac{1}{2}\big{[}(1+\cos(2\varphi))-(1-\cos(2\varphi))\big{]}[/tex]
[tex]\Longleftrightarrow \cos(2\theta)=\cos(2\varphi)\Longleftrightarrow \theta=\varphi\pm k\pi \:\:\:, k\in \mathbb{Z}[/tex]
[tex]|u_{11}|=\cos(\theta)\Longrightarrow u_{11}=\pm e^{i\alpha_1}\cos(\theta).[/tex]
Likewise, [tex]u_{12}=\pm e^{i\alpha_2}\sin(\theta) \:\:,\:\: u_{21}=\pm e^{i\alpha_3}\sin(\theta) \:\:,\:\: u_{22}=\pm e^{i\alpha_4}\cos(\theta)[/tex]
So we may now write the general form for a unitary operation acting on 1 qubit as
[tex]\left(\!\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\alpha_1}\cos(\theta) & -e^{i\alpha_2}\sin(\theta)\\e^{i\alpha_3}\sin(\theta) & e^{i\alpha_4}\cos(\theta)\end{array}\!\right)[/tex]
 
Orodruin said:
You are missing one condition on the phases. The way you have written it down, the matrix is not necessarily unitary. A general unitary 2x2 matrix has 4 real parameters.
So do I need to eliminate one of the alphas?
 
Soo check the unitarity condition again with my new U to get another set of equations?
 
That would be one way of doing it yes, but you can already get the condition from the contributions to the off diagonal elements in the product having the same phase.

Edit: Also, you should really not need to use the ##UU^\dagger## condition. Everything you need is already present from the ##U^\dagger U = 1## condition.
 
Ok so using [itex]UU^{\dagger}=I[/itex] I get for the orthogonal parts

[itex]e^{i(\alpha_1-\alpha_3)}\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta)-e^{i(\alpha_2-\alpha_4)}\sin(\theta)\cos(\theta)=0[/itex]

Which gives

[itex]\alpha_1-\alpha_2-\alpha_3+\alpha_4=0[/itex]

doing this for the other orthogonal row and collumn vector gives the same condition
 
It seems to me that this should be the easy part but I am not really sure what to do here
 
[itex]\left(\!\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\alpha_1}\cos(\theta) & -e^{i\alpha_2}\sin(\theta)\\e^{i\alpha_3}\sin(\theta) & e^{i(-\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\alpha_3)}\cos(\theta)\end{array}\!\right)[/itex]
 
Something like that, yes. An alternative form is:
$$
e^{i\sigma}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{i\delta} & 0 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\theta) & \sin(\theta) \\ -\sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta)
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{i\delta'} & 0 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
=
e^{i\sigma}
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\theta) e^{i(\delta+\delta')}& \sin(\theta)e^{i\delta} \\ -\sin(\theta)e^{i\delta'} & \cos(\theta)
\end{pmatrix}
$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jimmycricket
The form you have there is exactly what I'm trying to achieve i.e. show that any U can be written as the product of a global phase factor and rotations in the Z and Y axes (regarding the bloch sphere representation). I'm trying to work backwards from my U matrix to the Z-Y decomposition. Is that possible with my parameters defined as they are or do I need to do some more work.
 
Perhaps, everything becomes simpler by first using a bit of linear algebra and group theory?

I'd start with the determinant. From ##U U^{\dagger}=1##, you get
$$\mathrm{det} (U U^{\dagger})=|\mathrm{det} U|^2=1 \; \Rightarrow \mathrm{det} U=\exp(\mathrm{i} \varphi), \quad \varphi \in [0,2 \pi[.$$
Thus you have
$$U=\exp(\mathrm{i} \varphi/2) S, \quad S \in \mathrm{SU}(2).$$
So we only need to find an SU(2) matrix ##S##, i.e., a unitary matrix with ##\mathrm{det} S=1##.

The Inverse of a matrix is given by Cramer's Rule, i.e.,
$$S=\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\
c & d
\end{pmatrix} \; \Rightarrow \; S^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix} d & -b \\
-c & a
\end{pmatrix}.$$
On the other hand we have
$$S^{-1}=S^{\dagger}=\begin{pmatrix}
a^* & c^* \\
b^* & d^*
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Thus we have ##d=a^*##, ##c=-b^*##, i.e.,
$$S=\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\
-b^* & a^*
\end{pmatrix}.$$
From ##\mathrm{det} S=|a|^2+|b|^2## one can write ##|a|=\cos \theta##, ##|b|=\sin \theta## with ##0 \leq \theta \leq \pi/2##. Thus we have
$$a=\cos \theta \exp(\mathrm{i} \chi), \quad b=\sin \theta \exp(\mathrm{i} \psi).$$
So the most general SU(2) matrix should be of the form
$$S=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos \theta \exp(\mathrm{i} \chi) & \sin \theta \exp(\mathrm{i} \psi) \\
-\sin \theta(-\mathrm{i} \psi) & \cos \theta \exp(-\mathrm{i} \chi )
\end{pmatrix}.$$
I hope I haven't overlooked anything.

An alternative way is to use the fact that the exponential mapping from su(2) to SU(2) is surjective (onto). Thus the most general SU(2) matrix is given by
$$S=\exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{T} \cdot \vec{n} \varphi)$$
with
$$\vec{T}=\frac{1}{2} \vec{\sigma},$$
where ##\vec{\sigma}## are the Pauli matrices, ##\vec{n} \in \mathbb{R}^3## is an arbitrary unit vector, and ##\varphi \in [0,4 \pi[##. Then you have
$$S=\cos(\varphi/2) + \mathrm{i} \sin(\varphi/2) \vec{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}.$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jimmycricket
I'm using Nielsen and Chuang and would like to get an expression similar to theirs:

[itex]\left(\!\begin{array}{cc}e^{i(\alpha-\beta/2-\delta/2)}\cos(\theta) & -e^{i(\alpha-\beta/2+\delta/2)}\sin(\theta)\\e^{i(\alpha+\beta/2-\delta/2)}\sin(\theta) & e^{i(\alpha+\beta/2+\delta/2)}\cos(\theta)\end{array}\!\right)[/itex]

which gives the Z-Y decomposition as

[itex]U=e^{i\alpha}R_z(\beta)R_y(\gamma)R_z(\delta)[/itex]

Where the R's are the exponentiated pauli matrices.
 
That's of course another possibility. This you get immediately from the fact that SU(2) is the covering group of the rotation group SO(3), and you can decompose any rotation by the three rotations described by the Euler angles ##\beta##, ##\gamma##, and ##\delta##. Finally, since you want not only SU(2) but the more general U(2) matrix, you have to multiply the general SU(2) matrix by an arbitrary phase factor. That this gives all U(2) matrices follows from the fact that SU(2) is the kernel of the group homomorphism, ##\mathrm{det}:U(2) \rightarrow U(1)##, and thus U(2) factorizes into the invariant subgroup SU(2) and the coset U(1).

In terms of the Euler angles the SU(2) matrix reads
$$S=\exp(-\mathrm{i} \beta \sigma_3/2)\exp(-\mathrm{i} \gamma \sigma_2/2)\exp(-\mathrm{i} \delta \sigma_3/2)
=\begin{pmatrix}
\exp[-\mathrm{i} (\beta+\delta)/2] \cos (\gamma/2) & -\exp[-\mathrm{i} (\beta-\delta)/2] \sin (\gamma/2) \\
\exp[\mathrm{i} (\beta-\delta)/2] \cos (\gamma/2) & \exp[\mathrm{i} (\beta+\delta)/2] \cos (\gamma/2)
\end{pmatrix}.$$
This is of the same form as my solution above. You just have to map my angles to the Euler angles used here. The Euler angles are indeed a much nicer geometrical way to express the general SU(2) (and thus also U(2)) matrix.