Is the transformation matrix in Goldstein's problem an improper orthogonal one?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the transformation matrix associated with a reflection in a plane with a unit normal vector in Goldstein's problem. The derived transformation matrix is shown to be orthogonal, as it satisfies the condition A^T = A^{-1}. However, there is confusion regarding its improper nature, as the determinant was calculated to be +1 instead of -1, leading to questions about whether the matrix is proper. A specific case where the direction cosines are set to certain values reveals a determinant of -1, suggesting a potential error in the earlier determinant calculation. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of careful computation in determining the properties of the transformation matrix.
Irid
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
In Goldstein there is a problem asking to find a vector representation for a reflection in a plane of a unit normal \mathbf{\hat{n}}. I find it to be

\mathbf{r'} = \mathbf{r} - 2(\mathbf{r\cdot \hat{n}})\mathbf{\hat{n}}

and it has a corresponding transformation matrix with elements

A_{ij} = \delta_{ij} - 2l_i l_j

where l_i\, , i=1,2,3 are the direction cosines for the orientation of the plane. Goldstein then asks to show that this matrix is an improper orthogonal one. I can show orthogonality by simply noting that A^T = A, and then I multiply A^2 = I, which shows that A^T = A^{-1}, which is the condition for orthogonality.

However, the improper nature of the matrix is unclear to me. If I compute the determinant, by explicitly writing out the form of the matrix, the result I obtain is +1, instead of -1:

\text{det}(A) = \begin{vmatrix}<br /> 1-l_1^2 &amp; -l_1 l_2 &amp; -l_1 l_3\\<br /> -2l_1 l_2 &amp; 1-2l_2^2 &amp; -2l_2 l_3\\<br /> -2l_1 l_3 &amp; -2l_2 l_3 &amp; 1-2l_3^2\end{vmatrix} = 1

Does it mean that the matrix is a proper one? Or is there an error in the problem statement, or am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If I set l1=l2=0, and l3=1, your matrix is diagonal with entries 1, 1, -1, which obviously has det = -1. So I think you must have made a mistake taking the determinant.
 
Oh yeah, that's right. Conclusion: don't drink behind the table.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top