How unitary change of basis related to Trace?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between unitary changes of basis and the trace of an operator, specifically referencing a problem from Shanker. The original poster expresses confusion about how a unitary change of basis relates to the equation Tr(Ω) = Tr(U†ΩU).

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the trace being invariant under unitary transformations and question the correct expression of this invariance. Some discuss the identity involving the trace of products of matrices and its relevance to the problem.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the concepts involved, with some participants providing insights into the mathematical relationships and identities that may clarify the original poster's confusion. However, a consensus on the understanding of the physical and mathematical implications remains unestablished.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the necessity of a solid understanding of linear algebra to fully grasp the concepts being discussed, indicating that some foundational knowledge may be lacking in the original poster's approach.

Shing
Messages
141
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Shanker 1.7.1
3.)Show that the trace of an operator is unaffected by a unitary change of basis (Equivalently, show TrΩ=TrU^{\dagger}ΩU

Homework Equations



I can show that via Shanker's hint, but I however can't see how a unitary change of basis links to TrΩ=TrU^{\dagger}ΩU, (and it really giving me a headache!) Would anyone be kind enough to explain to me?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is some identity which tells you that \mathrm{Tr}(AB) = \mathrm{Tr}(BA) (more generally one could state that the trace is invariant under cyclic permutations). Use it and your problem should be as good as solved.
 
Forgive my ignorance,
But shouldn't "unaffected by a unitary change of basis" be expressed asTrUΩ=TrΩ
 
Last edited:
Shing said:
Forgive my ignorance,
But shouldn't "unaffected by a unitary change of basis" be expressed asTrUΩ=TrΩ

No. A matrix A is a change of basis of a matrix B if A=T^(-1)BT for a nonsingular matrix T.
 
Thanks for reply,
So here is my understanding: we map A to B, A and B represent the same thing in different bases, and their mathematical relation is A=T^{-1}AT
am I right?
I have a rough picture now, but Sadly, I still can't see the physical picture, neither the mathematics.
, and shanker surely was telling the truth! One should know a bit more of linear algebra before embrace into it!

Thanks guys, anyway :)
 
Now I got it a bit!
For column vector (1,0) -> (0 ,1)
And T is {(0,1),(1,0)} :)
Did I get it right?
 
Shing said:
Now I got it a bit!
For column vector (1,0) -> (0 ,1)
And T is {(0,1),(1,0)} :)
Did I get it right?

If T is unitary then sure that's an option. So T takes (1,0) -> (0,1) and (0,1) -> (1,0). T^(-1) (which happens to be the same as T, but that's usually not the case) does the opposite. So to figure out what A is 'equivalent' (not equal!) to B, you use T to rotate a vector to the basis of B, then let B act on it, then undo the rotation with T^(-1), so A=T^(-1)BT. I know this is vague. But none of this vagueness should stop you from being able to show Tr(B)=Tr(A)=Tr(T^(-1)BT). That change of bases don't change the trace.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K