MHB Integrating a diagonal 2x2 matrix

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
\(r = r(x, t)\), \(q = q(x, t)\), \(\sigma_3 =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & -1
\end{bmatrix}
\)
I have the equation
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)}}{\partial x} &= \frac{i}{2}\begin{bmatrix}
-(qr)_t & 0\\
0 & (qr)_t
\end{bmatrix}\\
\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)} &= \alpha\sigma_3 + c\mathbb{I}\qquad (*)
\end{align}
where \(\alpha\) is a function of \(x\) and \(t\) related to \(q\) and \(r\) and
\[
\alpha_x + \frac{1}{2}i(qr)_t = 0
\]

How is \((*)\) obtained? I don't see it. I know that \(c\mathbb{I}\) is the matrix constant of integration so I am only focused on how \(\alpha\sigma_3\) comes from integrating the diagonal matrix.

I am trying to figure out the last page of
http://math.arizona.edu/~mcl/Miller/MillerLecture06.pdf
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
\(r = r(x, t)\), \(q = q(x, t)\), \(\sigma_3 =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & -1
\end{bmatrix}
\)
I have the equation
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)}}{\partial x} &= \frac{i}{2}\begin{bmatrix}
-(qr)_t & 0\\
0 & (qr)_t
\end{bmatrix}\\
\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)} &= \alpha\sigma_3 + c\mathbb{I}\qquad (*)
\end{align}
where \(\alpha\) is a function of \(x\) and \(t\) related to \(q\) and \(r\) and
\[
\alpha_x + \frac{1}{2}i(qr)_t = 0
\]

How is \((*)\) obtained? I don't see it. I know that \(c\mathbb{I}\) is the matrix constant of integration so I am only focused on how \(\alpha\sigma_3\) comes from integrating the diagonal matrix.

I am trying to figure out the last page of
http://math.arizona.edu/~mcl/Miller/MillerLecture06.pdf

Hmm. Interesting. Well, we can write
$$\frac{\partial\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)}}{\partial x}=\frac{i}{2}\begin{bmatrix}
-(qr)_t & 0 \\ 0 & (qr)_t \end{bmatrix}=- \frac{i(qr)_{t}}{2} \begin{bmatrix} 1 &0 \\ 0 &-1 \end{bmatrix}= - \frac{i(qr)_{t}}{2} \sigma_{3}.$$
At the very least, if we take
$$\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)} = \alpha \sigma_3 + c\mathbb{I} \qquad (*),$$
where
$$\alpha_x + \frac{1}{2}i(qr)_t = 0,$$
then if we differentiate $(*)$ w.r.t. $x$, we get that
$$\frac{\partial\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)}}{\partial x}= \alpha_{x} \sigma_{3}=
- \frac{i(qr)_{t}}{2} \sigma_{3},$$
which is what we had before. Given that the author has not specified $\alpha$ explicitly, but only given a DE that it satisfies, it looks to me as though he's merely substituted one DE for another.
 
Ackbach said:
Hmm. Interesting. Well, we can write
$$\frac{\partial\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)}}{\partial x}=\frac{i}{2}\begin{bmatrix}
-(qr)_t & 0 \\ 0 & (qr)_t \end{bmatrix}=- \frac{i(qr)_{t}}{2} \begin{bmatrix} 1 &0 \\ 0 &-1 \end{bmatrix}= - \frac{i(qr)_{t}}{2} \sigma_{3}.$$
At the very least, if we take
$$\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)} = \alpha \sigma_3 + c\mathbb{I} \qquad (*),$$
where
$$\alpha_x + \frac{1}{2}i(qr)_t = 0,$$
then if we differentiate $(*)$ w.r.t. $x$, we get that
$$\frac{\partial\mathbf{V}_{-1}^{(D)}}{\partial x}= \alpha_{x} \sigma_{3}=
- \frac{i(qr)_{t}}{2} \sigma_{3},$$
which is what we had before. Given that the author has not specified $\alpha$ explicitly, but only given a DE that it satisfies, it looks to me as though he's merely substituted one DE for another.

Thanks, I actually figured everything out but forgot to mark the thread as solved.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top