I Transform a 2x2 matrix into an anti-symmetric matrix

  • Thread starter Thread starter dRic2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Transform
dRic2
Gold Member
Messages
887
Reaction score
225
Hi,
I have a 2x2 hermitian matrix like:
$$
A = \begin{bmatrix}
a && b \\
-b && -a
\end{bmatrix}
$$
(b is imaginary to ensure that it is hermitian). I would like to find an orthogonal transformation M that makes A skew-symmetric:
$$
\hat A = \begin{bmatrix}
0 && c \\
-c && 0
\end{bmatrix}
$$
Is it possible, or I need to constrain my problem more? I need M to be orthogonal and with det(M) = 1. I was thinking maybe there are some tricks involving Pauli matrices.Ric
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is possible since the minimal polynomials of A and \hat A are m_A(\lambda) = \lambda^2 + b^2 - a^2 and m_{\hat A}(\lambda) = \lambda^2 + c^2, so if c^2 = b^2 - a^2 they will have the same minimal polynomial and the same Jordan normal form (which in this case is diagonal).

However, I don't think M will be orthogonal unless the eigenvectors of A are orthogonal, which does not appear to be the case in general: the eigenvectors are (b, a \mp \lambda) and their inner product is |a|^2 + |b|^2 + 2\operatorname{Im}(a\bar{\lambda}) - |\lambda|^2 where \lambda^2 = a^2 - b^2.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, PeroK and dRic2
Question: since A is hermitian ##\lambda## are reals, so if ##a## is real, then ##\text{Im}(a\lambda) = 0##
and
$$
|a|^2 - |b|^2 - (a^2 - b^2) = |b|^2 + b^2 = 0
$$
because ##b## is purely imaginary. Right?
 
No, you have ##|b|^2## with the wrong sign on the left.
 
Maarten Havinga said:
No, you have ##|b|^2## with the wrong sign on the left.
Sorry it was a typo. It should read ##+|b|^2## and it should be correct.
 
  • Like
Likes Maarten Havinga
It is correct with that addition
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
33
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K