Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

For some experimental and practical reason, I have created a new coordinate system in the form


where $T_{ij}$ isn't a square matrix. $x_i$ is standard Cartesian coordinates, and $x^\prime_j$ is a point in the new system. I have to mention that the new system's axes are not linearly independent. So the last relation can be written as

$$\left(\matrix{x_0^\prime\\x_1^\prime\\x_2^\prime\\x_3^\prime}\right)=\left( \matrix{T_{11} & T_{12} & T_{13} \\ T_{21} & T_{22} & T_{23} \\ T_{31} & T_{32} & T_{33} \\ T_{41} & T_{42} & T_{43} } \right)\cdot \left(\matrix{x\\y\\z}\right)$$

The matrix $T_{ij}$ is well defined.

What I need is a rotation operator that will transform a point in the primed system, as the standard rotation operator does. So say I have the standard rotation matrix in Cartesian coordinates around the z-axis:

$$R_{ij}= \left( \matrix{\cos{\theta}&-\sin{\theta}&0\\ \sin{\theta}&\cos{\theta}&0\\0&0&1} \right)$$

So to rotate a point in Cartesian coordinates, we use the standard operator formula:


where $P_j$ is the point before rotation, and $P^\prime_i$ is the point after rotation.

How can I write this rotation formula for a point in the new coordinates system that uses 4 points? How will the rotation matrix look like? I expect a rotation matrix that is $4\times4$, but I don't know how to derive it. Please help in that.

share|improve this question
My feeling it that your problem is underconstrained, because in the ' system you have a degree of freedom more. –  Bernhard Apr 18 '14 at 17:06
By the way, your notation is confusing with the primes, that are use to indicate rotation and 4d-system. –  Bernhard Apr 18 '14 at 17:07
@Bernhard I'm not certain, but I suspect that there isn't a new degree of freedom on the primed system because the axes aren't linearly independent. Given three of the coordinates, the last would be uniquely defined. –  Draksis Apr 18 '14 at 17:18
@Bernhard Never mind, I'm wrong. –  Draksis Apr 18 '14 at 17:23
@Draksis I've written the proof in my answer (not sure if it is proof from a mathematicians point of view, but for physicist it is hopefully enough ;)) –  Bernhard Apr 18 '14 at 17:25

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

To be consistent with notation, I use the $x'$ for the transformation to the new system and $\tilde{x}$ for the rotation. Thus, as you defined

$$x'_i=T_{ij}x_j,$$ $$\tilde{x}_i=R_{ij}x_j.$$

We know that


You are looking for the transformation matrix $Q_{ij}$, such that




Naively, one could now write from (1) and (2)

$$T R = Q T ,$$ $$Q=T R T^{-1}.$$

However, $T$ is not a square matrix, and does not invertable. In other words, such a matrix $Q$ can not be determined uniquely.

Or, looking at it as $$T_{ij}R_{jk} = Q_{pq}T_{qr}$$

You know that these are twelve equations, because both procut matrices are $4\times3$. $Q_{ij}$ is a $4\times4$ matrix, with, thus, $16$ unknowns. In other words, there are infinitely many possibilities. Unless, of course, you add constraints.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.