- #1
catsarebad
- 72
- 0
I'm missing something obvious so please point out what I'm thinking wrong
SE equation is:
ih d/dt |
> = H|
>
the taking adjoint turns i -> -i and (d/dt) -> -(d/dt)
so adjoint of SE should be same as SE
however it isn't. adjoint of SE is
-ih d/dt |
> = H|
>
do we not take adjoint of d/dt, if so, why not? the adjoint of d/dt is -d/dt, no?
thanks a bunch in advance.
SE equation is:
ih d/dt |
the taking adjoint turns i -> -i and (d/dt) -> -(d/dt)
so adjoint of SE should be same as SE
however it isn't. adjoint of SE is
-ih d/dt |
do we not take adjoint of d/dt, if so, why not? the adjoint of d/dt is -d/dt, no?
thanks a bunch in advance.
Last edited by a moderator: