Why adj( U(t)) * U(t) = I where U(t) is a propagator in QM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Propagator Qm
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
This is probably really obvious but can someone explain to me why adjiont( U(t)) * U(t) = I where U(t) is a propagator in QM and I is the identity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't that basically the definition of U?
 
Look at what happens if you time-reverse the Schrödinger equation.
 
ehrenfest said:
This is probably really obvious but can someone explain to me why adjiont( U(t)) * U(t) = I where U(t) is a propagator in QM and I is the identity.

This is not obvious, but can be proven. The time evolution operator U(t) [also known as propagator] must preserve probabilities. E. P. Wigner proved (I think it was in 1931) that this implies that U(t) is a unitary operator (formally, U(t) can be also antiunitary, but this possibility can be discarded on the basis of continuity of U(t)). This result is called "Wigner theorem". The condition you wrote is equivalent to saying that U(t) is a unitary operator.

Eugene.
 
in the language of operator theory, i believe another proof is via Stone's theorem.

it is always a bit startling to realize that many of the properties of QM follow very naturally from the mathematical properties of the Hilbert space. for example, many people are (for some reason) surprised when i tell them that the resolution of the identity, or complete set of states, \sum_i |i><i| = 1 is merely a trivial result of vector calculus, e.g. \vec{v} = \sum_i \vec{e_i} (\vec{e_i} \cdot \vec{v}) with an arbitrary basis
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Back
Top