9
$\begingroup$

Is there a way in which one can use the BCH relation to find the equivalent angle and the axis for two rotations? I am aware that one can do it in a precise way using Euler Angles but I was wondering whether we can use just the algebra of the rotation group to perform the same computation?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ If you like this question you may also enjoy reading this answer. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented Sep 4, 2013 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ @QMechanic: I liked the question - it is short, concise and to the point - but I didn't much like the linked answer - which was long and rambling and appears to be everything that someone knows about Lie Theory. $\endgroup$ Commented May 11, 2022 at 8:06

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$
  1. The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formula for the 3-dimensional rotations can indeed be summed up. Here we will just state the result in the notation of Ref. 1.

    Three-dimensional rotations are described by the Lie group $SO(3)$. The corresponding Lie algebra $so(3)$ is $$ \begin{align} [L_j, L_k] ~=~& i\sum_{\ell=1}^3\epsilon_{jk\ell} L_{\ell}, \cr j,k,\ell~\in~& \{1,2,3\},\cr \epsilon_{123}~=~&1, \cr i^2~=~&-1.\end{align}\tag{1} $$ In the adjoint representation, the three Lie algebra generators $iL_{\ell}\in{\rm Mat}_{3\times 3}(\mathbb{R})$, $\ell\in\{1,2,3\}$, are $3\times 3$ real antisymmetric matrices, $$ \begin{align}i(L_j)_{k\ell} ~=~& \epsilon_{jk\ell} ,\cr j,k,\ell~\in~& \{1,2,3\}.\end{align} \tag{2} $$

  2. A rotation matrix $$ R(\vec{\alpha})~\in~ SO(3)~ \subseteq ~{\rm Mat}_{3\times 3}(\mathbb{R}) \tag{3}$$ can be specified by a rotation axis and an rotation angle. Here we will use a 3-vector $$ \vec{\alpha}~=~\alpha \vec{n}_{\alpha}~\in~ \mathbb{R}^3, \tag{4}$$ where $\vec{n}_{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R}^3$ is a unit vector parallel to the rotation axis, $\vec{n}_{\alpha} \cdot \vec{n}_{\alpha}=1$; and $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}$ (without an arrow on top) is the angle of rotation.

    The formula for the rotation matrix in terms of $\vec{\alpha}$ reads $$\begin{align} R(\vec{\alpha}) ~=~&e^{i \vec{\alpha}\cdot \vec{L}}\cr ~=~& {\bf 1}_{3\times 3} - (1-\cos\alpha) (\vec{n}_{\alpha}\cdot \vec{L})^2 + i\sin\alpha ~\vec{n}_{\alpha}\cdot \vec{L}.\end{align} \tag{5}$$

  3. The composition of two rotations is again a rotation $$ R(\vec{\gamma})~=~R(\vec{\alpha})R(\vec{\beta}).\tag{6}$$ If we introduce the shorthand notation $$ c_{\alpha} ~:=~\cos\frac{\alpha}{2} ~\in~ \mathbb{R},\tag{7} $$ $$\vec{s}_{\alpha}~:=~\vec{n}_{\alpha} \sin\frac{\alpha}{2} ~\in~ \mathbb{R}^3,\tag{8} $$ $$ \vec{t}_{\alpha}~:=~\vec{n}_{\alpha} \tan\frac{\alpha}{2} ~\in~ \mathbb{R}^3,\tag{9} $$ the "addition formula" for the corresponding $3$-vectors can be neatly written as $$ \vec{t}_{\gamma} ~=~\frac{\vec{t}_{\alpha}+\vec{t}_{\beta}-\vec{t}_{\alpha}\times\vec{t}_{\beta} }{1-\vec{t}_{\alpha}\cdot \vec{t}_{\beta}}.\tag{10} $$

  4. The derivation of eq. (10) simplifies if one uses the fact that $SU(2)\cong U(1,\mathbb{H})$ is the double cover of $SO(3)$. An $SU(2)$-matrix $$ X(\vec{\alpha})~\in~ SU(2)~ \subseteq ~{\rm Mat}_{2\times 2}(\mathbb{C})\tag{11}$$ can be written in terms of the Pauli matrices as $$\begin{align} X(\vec{\alpha}) ~=~&e^{i \vec{\alpha}\cdot \vec{\sigma}/2}\cr ~=~& c_{\alpha}{\bf 1}_{2\times 2} + i\vec{s}_{\alpha}\cdot \vec{\sigma}.\end{align} \tag{12}$$ The composition of two $SU(2)$-matrix is given by the same BCH formula $$ X(\vec{\gamma})~=~X(\vec{\alpha})X(\vec{\beta}).\tag{13}$$

References:

  1. G 't Hooft, Introduction to Lie Groups in Physics, lecture notes, chapter 3. The pdf file is available here.

  2. S. Weigert, J. Phys. A30 (1997) 8739, arXiv:quant-ph/9710024.

  3. K. Engø, On the BCH-formula in so(3), Bit Num. Math. 41 (2001) 629. (Hat tip: WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance.)

  4. Wikipedia.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ J Willard Gibbs (1884). Elements of Vector Analysis, New Haven, p. 67, and, in our days, in Wikipedia, of course: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [Wikipedia] $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 8, 2016 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ Notes for later: To generalize BCH from $SU(2)$ to $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ define $\vec{\alpha}=\alpha \vec{n}_{\alpha}\in\mathbb{C}^3$ where $ \vec{n}_{\alpha}\in\mathbb{C}^3$ has bilinear inner product $=1$ and $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$. Then eqs. (10), (12) & (13) are still valid. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented May 10, 2022 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ We can remove $i/2$ and go to hyperbolic functions: $$ c_{\alpha} ~:=~\cosh\alpha, \quad \vec{s}_{\alpha}~:=~\vec{n}_{\alpha} \sinh\alpha, \quad \vec{t}_{\alpha}~:=~\vec{n}_{\alpha} \tanh\alpha,\tag{7'+8'+9'}$$ $$\vec{t}_{\gamma} ~=~\frac{\vec{t}_{\alpha}+\vec{t}_{\beta}+i\vec{t}_{\alpha}\times\vec{t}_{\beta} }{1+\vec{t}_{\alpha}\cdot \vec{t}_{\beta}},\tag{10'} $$ $$ X(\vec{\alpha}) ~=~e^{\vec{\alpha}\cdot \vec{\sigma}} ~=~ c_{\alpha}{\bf 1}_{2\times 2} + \vec{s}_{\alpha}\cdot \vec{\sigma}. \tag{12'}$$ Fails for null directions. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented May 10, 2022 at 23:05
2
$\begingroup$

As $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ is a connected group, $\exp(\mathsf{L}(\mathrm{SO}(3))) = \mathrm{SO}(3)$ and hence this should – in theory – work. Let us work in the fundamental representation of $\mathrm{SO}(3)$, that is orthogonal 3x3 matrices.

Assume you have a rotation $B$ acting first and a second rotation $A$, the resulting rotation is then given by $AB \equiv C \in \mathrm{SO}(3)$. Furthermore, we can express $A$, $B$ and $C$ by $\exp(a)$, $\exp(b)$ and $\exp(c)$ for $a,b,c \in \mathsf{L}(\mathrm{SO}(3))$. We then have¹

$$ \exp(a) \exp(b) = AB = C = \exp(c) = \exp\left(a + b + \frac{1}{2}[a,b] + \frac{1}{12} [ a, [a,b]] - \frac{1}{12}[b,[a,b]]+ \ldots\right)\quad.$$

Now, the problem with verifying this by an example is that these commutators are rather ugly. I shall do two examples:

First example: Two rotations about the $x$ axis

Take $A$ to rotate about $(1,0,0)$ by $\theta$ and $B$ to rotate about the same axis by $\phi$. We then have

$$ A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \cos(\theta) & -\sin(\theta) \\ 0 & \sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta) \end{pmatrix}$$

and similarly for $B$. The associated $a$ is then simply:

$$ a = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -\theta \\ 0 & \theta & 0 \end{pmatrix}\quad $$

and again similarly for $b$ with $\theta \to \phi$. You can check easily that $\exp(a)$ gives you indeed $A$. Now since $a$ and $b$ commute, we have $[a,b] = 0$ and hence $c = a + b$ - which is

$$ c = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -\theta -\phi \\ 0 & \theta + \phi & 0 \end{pmatrix}\quad.$$

This very likely illuminates better than $AB$ that two rotations about the same axis are equivalent to one rotation by the sum of the angles. You can again check that $\exp(c)$ gives you $C$.

Second Example: One rotation about $y$, a second about $x$.

This one is more difficult, as we will have to calculate annoying commutators. The result presented here will hence only be approximate, not exact.

Take

$$ A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \cos(\theta) & -\sin(\theta) \\ 0 & \sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta) \end{pmatrix} \qquad B = \begin{pmatrix} \cos(\phi) & 0 & \sin(\phi) \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -\sin(\phi) & 0 & \cos(\phi) \end{pmatrix} \quad .$$

You can calculate that

$$ AB = C = \begin{pmatrix} \cos(\phi) & 0 & \sin(\phi) \\ \sin(\theta) \sin(\phi) & \cos(\theta) & -\sin(\theta) \cos(\phi) \\ \sin(\phi)\cos(\theta) & \sin(\theta) & \cos(\phi)\cos(\theta) \end{pmatrix} \quad .$$

Similarly to the above, we have

$$ a = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -\theta \\ 0 & \theta & 0 \end{pmatrix} \qquad b = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & \phi \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -\phi & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \quad.$$

Now the tricky part is to calculate

$$ c = a + b + \frac{1}{2} [ a,b] + \frac{1}{12} [ a, [a,b]] - \frac{1}{12} [b,[a,b]] + \ldots $$

to such a precision that $\exp(c)$ gives remotely sensible results. At this, I mostly failed, but here's what I got:

$$ \frac{1}{2} [ a,b] = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -\theta\phi & 0 \\ \theta\phi & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\quad,$$

which looks an awful lot like the element of the Lie algebra basis corresponding to a rotation about the $z$ axis, but unfortunately doesn’t fit in at all (something linear in either $a$ or $b$ would have been nice…). I then went on to calculate $[a,[a,b]]$ and $[b,[a,b]]$ and arrived at

$$ c \approx \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -\frac{1}{2}\theta\phi & \phi - \frac{1}{12} \theta^2 \phi \\ \frac{1}{2} \theta \phi & 0 & -\theta + \frac{1}{12} \theta\phi^2 \\ -\phi + \frac{1}{12} \theta^2 \phi & \theta - \frac{1}{12} \theta \phi^2 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \quad . $$

The nice thing here is that this is still an antisymmetric matrix and hence (can be) in $\mathsf{L}(\mathrm{SO}(3))$. In order to now compare this to anything, we have to approximate $C$. Recall the expression from above. As a first approximation, I will set $\cos(x) = 1 - \frac{1}{2}x^2$, $\sin(x) = x - \frac{1}{6} x^3$. I then get

$$ C \approx \begin{pmatrix} 1 - \frac{\phi^2}{2} & 0 & \phi - \frac{\phi^3}{6} \\ \left(\theta - \frac{\theta^3}{6}\right) \left(\phi - \frac{\phi^3}{6}\right) & 1 - \frac{\theta^2}{2} & -\left(1-\frac{\phi^2}{2}\right)\left(\theta - \frac{\theta^3}{6}\right) \\ -\left(1-\frac{\theta^2}{2}\right)\left(\phi-\frac{\phi^3}{6}\right) & \theta - \frac{\theta^3}{6} & \left(1 - \frac{\theta^2}{2}\right)\left(\phi - \frac{\phi^3}{6}\right) \end{pmatrix} \quad ,$$

expanding out the brackets and throwing away anything of order four, I arrive at

$$ C \approx \begin{pmatrix} 1 - \frac{\phi^2}{2} & 0 & \phi - \frac{\phi^3}{6} \\ \theta\phi & 1 - \frac{\theta^2}{2} & -\theta + \frac{\phi^2\theta}{2} \\ -\phi + \frac{\theta^2\phi}{2} & \theta - \frac{\theta^3}{6} & \phi - \frac{\theta^2\phi}{2} \end{pmatrix}\quad.$$

This expression should be roughly equal to

$$ 1_3 + c + \frac{1}{2} c^2 + \frac{1}{6} c^3 \quad,$$

which is the expansion of $\exp(c)$. After again throwing away everything of order four, we arrive at

$$ \exp(c) \approx \begin{pmatrix} 1-\frac{\phi^2}{2} & 0 & \phi - \frac{\phi^3}{6} \\ \theta\phi & 1 - \frac{\theta^2}{2} & -\theta+\frac{\theta^3}{6} +\frac{\theta\phi^2}{2}\\ -\phi +\frac{\theta^2 \phi}{2} & \theta - \frac{\theta^3}{6} & 1 - \frac{\theta^2}{2} - \frac{\phi^2}{2} \end{pmatrix} \quad .$$

The remaining ‘wrong’ terms here most probably cancel with higher orders of $c$, but I have to admit I am slightly too lazy for that.

Conclusion

The main problem with the BCH formula is really that, in general, $[a,b] \neq 0$ and you hence most often not even get an exact expression for $c$ – from which one could most likely deduce angle and axis of rotation without evaluating that pesky exponential. Without an exact expression for $c$, however, all is lost, as non-exact expressions merely rely on the fact that for infinitesimal angles of rotation, all rotations commute.

I would love to hear other opinions, though, especially regarding the ‘theoretical’ part what one could do with $c$, if it was known exactly.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ This is right; the BCH formula gives the right answer, but the expansion doesn't terminate, so it's only so useful. The easiest way I can think of to quickly extract axis and angle is to use quaternions. $\endgroup$
    – Muphrid
    Commented Dec 5, 2012 at 21:09
  • $\begingroup$ It does not terminate only if it is mishandled! In effect, of course, it sums to the standard Gibbs formula: [Pauli matrices]](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… ) ... Further see above comments to Qmechanic's answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 8, 2016 at 14:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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