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

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.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Thread 'Lesser Green's function'
First consider the case t <t' Alpha is the state of the system at time t' given that a hole was created at single particle state ##\nu## at earlier time t. And beta is the state of the systembat time t' given that a hole is created at state ##\nu## at that instant. It gives me good physical interpretation that lesser function for t<t' is proportional to probablity amplitude for the hole created at time t in state ##\nu## would remain in state nu at time t' also. Now consider t>t' Alpha is...

Similar threads

Back
Top