Existence of adjoint of an antilinear operaor, time reversal

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the existence of an adjoint for an antilinear operator, specifically the time reversal operator T, which is antiunitary. The user questions the validity of using the adjoint notation T^\dagger in the context of antilinear operators, leading to a contradiction when applying bra-ket notation. The conclusion drawn is that defining the adjoint of an antilinear operator is feasible, as the scalar product remains consistent with that of linear operators, despite the complexities introduced by the antilinear nature.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of antiunitary operators and their properties
  • Familiarity with bra-ket notation in quantum mechanics
  • Knowledge of linear and antilinear transformations
  • Basic concepts of scalar products in Hilbert spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of antiunitary operators in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the mathematical framework of adjoint operators in functional analysis
  • Explore the implications of antilinear operators in quantum state transformations
  • Investigate the use of bra-ket notation in various quantum mechanical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, mathematicians specializing in functional analysis, and students studying quantum mechanics who seek to deepen their understanding of antilinear operators and their adjoints.

youngurlee
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
The time reversal operator [itex]T[/itex] is an antiunitary operator, and I saw [itex]T^\dagger[/itex] in many places
(for example when some guy is doing a "time reversal" [itex]THT^\dagger[/itex]),
but I wonder if there is a well-defined adjoint for an antilinear operator.

Suppose we have an antilinear operator [itex]A[/itex] such that
$$
A(c_1|\psi_1\rangle+c_2|\psi_2\rangle)=c_1^*A|\psi_1\rangle+c_2^*A|\psi_2\rangle
$$
for any two kets [itex]|\psi_1\rangle,|\psi_2\rangle[/itex] and any two complex numbers [itex]c_1^*, c_2^*[/itex].

And below is my reason for questioning the existence of [itex]A^\dagger[/itex]:

Let's calculate [itex]\langle \phi|cA^\dagger|\psi\rangle[/itex].
On the one hand, obviously
$$
\langle \phi|cA^\dagger|\psi\rangle=c\langle \phi|A^\dagger|\psi\rangle
$$
But on the other hand,
$$
\langle \phi|cA^\dagger|\psi\rangle =\langle \psi|Ac^*|\phi\rangle^*=\langle \psi|cA|\phi\rangle^*=c^*\langle \psi|A|\phi\rangle^*=c^*\langle \phi|A^\dagger|\psi\rangle
$$,
from which we deduce that [itex]c\langle \phi|A^\dagger|\psi\rangle=c^*\langle \phi|A^\dagger|\psi\rangle[/itex], almost always false, and thus a contradiction!

So where did I go wrong if indeed [itex]A^\dagger[/itex] exists?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not reccomandable to use bra-ket notation in the absence of self-adjoint linear operators.

It no more difficult to define the adjoint of an antilinear operator than it is to define it for a linear one. The scalar product involved in the definition is the same, there's no scalar in it which would make the difference between antilinear and linear fpr the operator involved.

Try to rewrite your chain of 5 equalities without bra's and ket's.
 
youngurlee said:
Let's calculate [itex]\langle \phi|cA^\dagger|\psi\rangle[/itex].
I would be careful already here. You should make clear whether the operator acts on the bra or on the ket. It is not evident whether the two possibilities coincide.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K