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

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 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top