PW. J. Veigele, At. Data, $1 (1973 "WL, C Northlilfe and R. F. Schilling, Nucl Data Tables A7, 233 1970) "WK. Robinson, W.D. Adams, and J.L. Duggan, Am. J. Phys. 36,689 (1968, 2G, Basbas, W. Brandt, and R. Laubert, Phys. Rev. A7, 983 (1973), 4G, Monigold,F.D. McDaniel, J. L. Duggan, R Rice, A. Toten, and R. Mehta, Phys. Rev. A 18, 380 (1978), 24, C. Slater, Phys. Rev. 36, 57 (1930) PG, §. Khandelwal, B.H. Choi, and E. Merabacher, At. Data 1, 103, Normal matrices for physicists Philip A. Macklin (1969). RH. McKnight, S.. Thornton, and R. R. Karlowics, Phys. Rev. A9, 267 1974 D. Burch and P. Richard, Phys. Rev. Lett 25,983 (1970) %A. R. Knudson, D. J. Nage, P. G, Burkhalter, and K. L, Dunning, Phys. Rev. Lett 26, 149 1971), ©°Methods of Experimental Physics: tome Physics (Accelerators (Aca demi, New York, 1980}, Vol. 17, pp. 74-39. H. Paul, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 24, 243 (1979). Department of Physics, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056 (Received 27 June 1983; accepted for publication 31 August 1983) ‘Normal matrices are the largest class of matrices which can be diagonalized by unitary transformations. They include Hermitian, anti-Hermitian, unitary, real symmetric, and real orthogonal matrices, the primary types of interest to physicists. An aesthetically and practically satisfying synthesis as well as a significant saving of effort is achieved by studying normal matrices first and then deducing results for the various particular types subsequently. A simple constructive proof of the fundamental result that every normal matrix can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix is given. Physicists typically study real symmetric matrices (e.g., the moment of inertia matrix), Hermitian matrices (e8., ‘matrices of physical observables in quantum mechanics), unitary matrices (e.,, transformation matrices in quantum mechanics), and real orthogonal matrices (e.g., rigid body mechanics) separately, deducing the properties of the eigenvalues, the orthonormality of eigenvectors, the char- acter of the diagonalizing similarity transformations and the implications of degenerate eigenvalues in each case. A significant saving in effort as well as an aesthetically and practically satisfying synthesis may be achieved by first studying normal matrices (of which Hermitian, anti-Her- mitian, unitary, real symmetric, real orthogonal, etc., are special cases) and then particularizing. The fundamental theorem concerning normal matrices is that a matrix A can be diagonalized by a unitary transfor- mation if and only if 4 is a normal matrix {[4,A"] = 4a" — "A =0, where ' isthe adjoint (com- plex conjugate and transpose) of 4 }. While this theorem is ‘well known,'? the proofs have not captivated most physi cists. A simple constructive proof (developed by the author toappeal to fellow physicists) that every normal matrix can bbe diagonalized by a unitary matrix is given here, as well as the proof of the converse. 1, CONSTRUCTIVE PROOF THAT EVERY (nxn) NORMAL MATRIX 4 CAN BEDIAGONALIZED BY AUNITARY MATRIX. Since every matrix has at least one nonzero eigenvector, let V, be an eigenvector of 4 with eigenvalue A, and com- plete'a set Vi,..¥, of orthonormal (V} V; = 4)) vectors spanning the n-dimensional space. The matrix V formed from the orthonormal V,,..,V, a8 columns is clearly uni- 513 Am.J. Phys. $2(6), June 1986 tary and may be applied tod asa similarity transformation. (itVabe W) = SAV, AA f4V,) VIAV, VIAV, ~ VIAV, Vi av, ViAV, VAY, =| °F ; k VIAN, VIAV, VIAV, But V] AV, =A,V1 V, = 4,6, since V, is an eigenvector of A with eigenvalue 4,. Thus A, VAY, » VTAV, 0 VAN, VI AV, (A, 2) vava|® "4m ~ Whar) at A 8 E 6 ro 0 ViAry =» VLAN, (2) where B is a [1X(n~ 1)] row vector, 0 is an [(n— 1)x 1] ‘column vector, and Cis an {(n — 1)X(n — 1)] matrix. Now normal matrices ([4, A"] = 44" —A 1A = 0) re- ‘main normal under unitary similarity transformations © 1984 American Association of Physics Teachers 513.since [utanutauyt} = (U'AU,Uta UY] = Uta AU Uta TUT =U"4At—A1A)U = UA, AU =0. Thus (ravvtary) @ B @ ( BBY car Bi, 1 BB+ CCT ce (8) But BB" is the sum of the absolute squares of the ele- ments of row vector B and BB*=0 therefore implies B=0. With B=0 the lower right partition is [6,C*] =0, so Cis normal and at tava (Au. rar= G42) Now the eigenvalues of a matrix are invariant under similarity transformations, so V'AV has the same cigen- values as 4. Further, the characteristic equation for the eigenvalues pis aer{(2-+2) —ar,]=1, —weeuc—nt,)=0. so that the eigenvalues of C are the same as those of 4, except for the deletion of 2, [J, isthe (nn) identity matrix and 1, , the [(n — 1)x(n — 1)] identity matrix}. Choose an eigenvector of Cwith eigenvalue A, and complete set of orthonormal eigenvectors spanning this (n — 1) dimension- al space. Calling the unitary matrix constructed from them as columns ¥, construct the (nn) unitary matrix Was waG+9) 4 WIVIAVW =(VW YAW) “GHG b vite vier} 6) Now aa the same arguments used above show that 6 Clearly this process can be continued. In the next step, eg, we would construct a unitary matrix X as ih 0 x=(@49). S14 Am.J. Phys, Vol. $2, No.6, June 1984 where Z isan [(n — 2) (n — 2)] unitary matrix whose first column is an eigenvector of D with eigenvalue A, and I, is the (2X2) identity matrix. Since the product U of unitary matrices (V, W, X, . unitary, weshall have after (n — 1) steps U'AU = A where Aisa diagonal matrix whose frst n — 1) diagonal elements ‘we have shown to bea). But since the eigenval- ues of / are the same as those of 4, the nth diagonal element is, and we have completed a constructive proof that ev- ery (nn) normal matrix may be diagonalized by a unitary matrix. I, PROOF THAT EVERY MATRIX WHICH CAN BE DIAGONALIZED BY A UNITARY MATRIX IS NORMAL Conversely, suppose a matrix A can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix U. Then D=U'AU, Dt =U'AtU, m [D,D") = UtavutatU— UtAtUU TAU =U'[4, ATU. (8) Thus (4,At] =U[D,D "Ut. 0) But D and D’ are diagonal and diagonal matrices com- mute, so [4, A "] = Oand 4 is normal. Summarizing, a matrix A can be diagonalized by a uni- tary matrix if and only if 4 is normal Il. FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM RESULTS ‘The fundamental theorem allows us to write U1A where2 is diagonal. Thus4U = UA. Written in partitioned form, with the columns of U denoted by U; and the diag- onal elements of by 4, we have AU, {Ua} Uy) = (0 [af |U or (10) (AU, {AU y} 1AU,) = (AU LAW im A, Uh, where AU, and A,U, are (nX 1) column vectors. Thus the columns U; of U are orthonormal eigenvectors of 4 with eigenvalues A,. ‘The eigenvectors of a normal matrix 4 are also eigenvec- tors of A ' but with eigenvalues which are the complex con- jugates of those of A since UtAU=A implies UAW =A". ‘Any matrix A can be written as the sum B+iC of a Hermitian matrix B = (4 + A')/2 and an anti-Hermitian matrix iC = (A — A*)/2 (note that C is Hermitian). It is easy to show that A is normal if and only if B and C com- mute since [4,4 '] = —2i[B,C]. Thus matrices with C =0 (Hermitian) are normal, matrices with B = 0 (anti- Hermitian) are normal, and unitary matrices are normal (since UU'=U'U =I). Additionally, real symmetric ‘matrices are Hermitian and thus normal and real orthogo- nal matrices are unitary and thus normal. Thus all of these matrices have orthonormal eigenvectors. For Hermitian matrices A the eigenvalues are real since U'AU =A implies 2° = U'A'U = U'AU =A. Similar- ly, the eigenvalues of an anti-Hermitian matrix are pure imaginary. Forunitary matrices 4 the eigenvalues have unit magni- Philip A. Macklin S14tude since 414 = Ul "UU AU = UA AU = UU =. For real symmetric Hermitian) matrices A the eigenvec- tors may be chosen real since the matrix elements as well as the eigenvalues are real. Thus the matrix U may be chosen. teal orthogonal. Since the eigenvectors of normal matrices are orthonor- ‘mal they are unique (to within an arbitrary phase factor a, real) unless degeneracy is present. In the presence of degeneracy, i, more than one linearly independent eigen- vector belong to the same eigenvalue, our proof shows that, the eigenvectors may nonetheless be chosen orthonormal, but clearly any orthonormal set spanning the degenerate subspace is acceptable, Which set of orthonormal eigenvec- tors one chooses when degeneracy is present is arbitrary, ‘but may be made as specific as in the nondegenerate case if, the degeneracy is gradually removed (the matrix remaining, normal) and then the degeneracy restored. The orthonor- ‘mal set selected by this process depends on how the degen- eracy is removed Thus, eg., the matrices ( dae(o® 2) are each normal forall and Hermitian for real) each has degenerate eigenvalues. + 1, + 1 for € = 0, each has non- degenerate eigenvalues (1 +) and (I — e)fore#0, but the first matrix has eigenvectors (2) a( 2" ) 1217) 4 ( ave for €%40 and for e+ 0, while the second matrix has eigen- vectors ()s=(i) Force ona ‘S. Margulies for €40 and for e— 0. Finally, if two Hermitian matrices, B and C, commute we showed B+ iCis normal and U'(B + iC)U = A. Thus U"B—iC\U=At and A+ATV/2=U'BU and (&—A'/2i) = U'CU and the same unitary matrix U ‘which diagonalizes the normal matrix B + iC also diagon- alizes B and C separately; ic., commuting Hermitian ma- trices possess a common complete set of orthonormal ei- genvectors. Conversely, iftwo Hermitian matrices B and C possess a common complete set of orthonormal eigenvec- tors, they must commute, since U‘BU =p, U'CU. and y diagonal, implies UB + iC\U =m +iv only normal matrices can be diagonalized by unitary trans- formations, so (B + iC) must be normal and, therefore, {B,C} =0, ie, Band Ccommute. ‘Thus all these basic results for real orthogonal and real symmetric matrices and for their complex analogs, unitary and Hermitian matrices, can be obtained in a simple fash ion from the fundamental theorem on normal matrices. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to express my appreciation to Eugen ‘Merzbacher’ for forcing normal matrices upon my atten- tion; to Benjamin F. Plybon for contributing to my knowl- ‘edge of normal matrices; and to George B. Arfken, Eugen Merzbacher, and Benjamin F. Plybon for reacting to a draft of this paper. 'P. R. Halmos, Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces Van Nostrand, New York, 1958 *F.E. Hohn, Elementary Matix Algebra (Macmillan, New York, 1973) Sed ed E, Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New ork, 1970), 2nd ed, pals ielectric slab inserted into a parallel-plate capacitor Department of Physic, University of Minois at Chicago, Chicago, Minois 60680 (Received 23 May 1983; accepted for publication 27 September 1983) A common example from intermediate-level electromagnetic theory, the calculation of the force acting on a dielectric slab partially inserted into a parallel-plate capacitor, is examined in detail. The physical origin of the force, ignored in most textbooks, is shown to be due to the fringe field. The standard textbook calculation, in which the fringe field is explicitly ignored, is examined. An analysis which includes the presence of the fringe field indicates that the standard result is valid, ‘but under conditions other than those generally presented. 1. INTRODUCTION A familiar example, found in most intermediate-level texts on electromagnetic theory, is the calculation of the force acting on a dielectric slab partially inserted into a parallel-plate capacitor. The calculation is based on the principle of virtual work which allows the determination of the electromagnetic forces acting on the elements of a sys- S15 Am.J. Phys. $2(6), June 1984 tem if the field energy is known as a function of the geome- try. Although the calculation is simple, the accompanying textbook discussions leave much to be desired. Almost in- variably, the textbook presentations ignore the physical origin of the force and treat the problem formally. In addi- tion, the approximations used do not clearly justify the re- sult of the calculation. As a consequence, the result ob- © 1984 American Association of Physics Teachers 51S