Graduate Is Normalizing a 4x4 Matrix Possible Using Multiple Methods?

Click For Summary
Normalizing a 4x4 matrix can be approached through various methods, including calculating the normalization constant N using the trace or determinant. The normalization constant provided in the research paper is N=4-2g^2+2f^2, which aligns with the trace of the matrix. It is suggested to divide the matrix by its trace to achieve normalization, provided the trace is not zero. However, the condition G^2=1 indicates a different normalization approach, potentially requiring method 3, which involves the ratio of integrals. Clarification on the normalization goal is essential for selecting the appropriate method.
wondering12
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I am trying to normalize 4x4 matrix (g and f are functions):

\begin{equation}
G=\begin{matrix}
(1-g^2) &0& 0& 0&\\
0& (1+f^2)& (-g^2-f^2)& 0 \\
0 &(-g^2-f^2)& (1+f^2)& 0 &\\
0& 0& 0& (1-g^2)
\end{matrix}
\end{equation}

It's a matrix that's in a research paper (which I don't have) which gives the normalization constant as: N=4-2g^2+2f^2.
I've been looking up online and found that N can be found with:

method 1: N=\sqrt{\sum{X^2}} where X represents the elements of the matrix.

method 2: I also found somewhere which said that I need to find the determinant.

method 3: The ratio between the integral of excited state matrix and the integral of normal state of the matrix.

I'm not sure who's right, but I'm not getting what was on paper.

For method [1] I'm getting as far as: N^2 = 4(1+f^4+f^2g^2+f^2) . So I backtracked to see if their N^2 matches my N^2. But their N^2=16+4g^4+4f^4+16g^2-8g^2f^2+16f^2.

Note that the normalization must satisfy the following condition G^2=1

Any comments about all methods mentioned and how to implement it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What about the matrix are you trying to normalize?

I notice that if you sum down the diagonal of the matrix that you get ##4-2g^2-2f^2##, which is the normalization constant you quote. So presumably you're trying to normalize the trace? In that case... just divide the matrix by its trace. The resulting matrix will have a trace of 1, unless the trace was 0 in which case you're not going to be able to normalize.
 
  • Like
Likes wondering12
Yes, you are correct. The paper normalizes the trace and your answer is correct for that part. I admit that I asked to many question on this one, because when I mentioned normalizing condition $G^2=1$ that is a different story...That is probably normalizing the whole matrix which can be implement with method 3 which I am not familiar with.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K