Can a Non-Conformal Unitary Mapping Solve This Homework Statement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kreizhn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mapping
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a unitary operator that can map two-dimensional pure states |+\rangle and |-\rangle to specific linear combinations involving an angle θ, where 0 ≤ θ ≤ π/4. The original poster expresses uncertainty regarding the unitary nature of the proposed mapping and its implications on the orthogonality of the states.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the formulation of a linear system of equations to derive a unitary operator and question the orthogonality of the original and transformed states. There is also discussion about the assumptions regarding the states being orthonormal and the implications of non-conformal mappings.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants raising questions about the correctness of the transformation matrix and the nature of the states involved. Some participants suggest reconsidering the assumptions about orthogonality, while others provide insights into the constraints on the angle θ.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted ambiguity regarding the orthogonality of the states |+\rangle and |-\rangle, as well as the implications of the term "conformal" in the context of unitary transformations. The original poster indicates that the angle θ is not entirely arbitrary, linking it to the inner product of the states.

Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I need to find a unitary operator that can map two (two-dimensional) pure states [itex]|+\rangle, |-\rangle[/itex] as follows:
[tex]|+\rangle \to \cos\theta |+\rangle + \sin\theta |-\rangle[/tex]
[tex]|-\rangle \to \sin\theta |+\rangle + \cos\theta |- \rangle[/tex]
For an arbitrary angle [itex]0 \leq \theta \leq \frac\pi4[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



The first obvious attempt at a solution is to simply create a linear system of equations for an element of [itex]U(2)[/itex], and solve, which gives
[tex]\begin{pmatrix} \cos\theta & \sin\theta \\ \sin\theta & \cos\theta \end{pmatrix}[/tex]
However, this is obviously not unitary. Since I know that unitary mappings are not forced to be conformal, I think the mapping does exist, but am unsure where to go from here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kreizhn said:

Homework Statement


I need to find a unitary operator that can map two (two-dimensional) pure states [itex]|+\rangle, |-\rangle[/itex] as follows:
[tex]|+\rangle \to \cos\theta |+\rangle + \sin\theta |-\rangle[/tex]
[tex]|-\rangle \to \sin\theta |+\rangle + \cos\theta |- \rangle[/tex]
For an arbitrary angle [itex]0 \leq \theta \leq \frac\pi4[/itex]

Are you sure the second term with a cos theta should not be negative? That's what is usually used, so that the kets in the new basis are still orthonormal (assuming that [tex]|+ \rangle[/tex] and [tex]|- \rangle[/tex] form an orthonormal basis)
 
I had originally thought that myself, and so double checked before posting. According to the text I am using (and the associated diagram), the problem statement is correct.
 
It's not possible. The original states are orthogonal, and the transformed states are not, but unitary transformations preserve inner products.
 
I never said that the original two states were orthogonal. I realize that by using the +/- notation you may have assumed as such (as I realize they are commonly used to represent an orthonormal basis), but they needn't be for the purpose of this discussion.
 
I'm not sure if it helps at all, but the value of theta isn't entirely arbitrary. I said so originally to see if it could be done in general. For my purpose, theta is

[tex]\theta = \frac12 \arcsin(\langle + | - \rangle )[/tex]

That is,

[tex]\sin2\theta = \langle + | - \rangle[/tex]
 
Kreizhn said:
I never said that the original two states were orthogonal. I realize that by using the +/- notation you may have assumed as such (as I realize they are commonly used to represent an orthonormal basis), but they needn't be for the purpose of this discussion.

Ah ok! But you assumed too that they were orthonormal when you wrote the transformation matrix. You assumed that [tex]|+ \rangle[/tex] was the column vector with entries (1,0) and you assumed that [tex]|- \rangle[/tex] was the column vector with entries (0,1). You need to write the general expressions for those two states.

By the way, what does "conformal" have to do with the question?
 
Very good point, I did end up assuming they were orthogonal myself. I mentioned the non-conformality in that most unitary operators seem to be rotations, though I think that for this purpose we are primarily interested in a non-conformal map. I could be wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K