Linear operators and a change of basis

wakko101
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
So...I've got an operator.

Omega = (i*h-bar)/sqrt(2)[ |2><1| + |3><2| - |1><2| - |2><3| ]

Part a asks if this is Hermitian, and my answer, unless I'm missing something, is no. Because the second part in square brackets is |1><2| + |2><3| - |2><1| - |2><3| which is not the same as Omega.

The second part asks to construct the matrix Omega(ij) = <i|Omega|j> that represents this operator in the basis {|1>, |2>, |3>}. I figured it out to be
0 1 0
1 0 1 all multiplied by that funky complex factor at the beginning.
0 1 0

Or so I think.

The third part is where it gets tricky. It gives a new basis {|1'>, |2'>, |3'>} that's somewhat complicated looking and written in terms of the original basis vectors. It asks to write out the operator

U = (from i=1 to 3) SUM(|i'><i|)

in terms of the kets {|1>, |2>, |3>} and bras {<1|, <2|, <3|}. And it asks if the operator is unitary. My problem is this...how do I go about writing out this operator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think your reason for it being non-Hermitian makes sense. The part in brackets can't be the same as Omega because there's a factor out the front, could you clarify what you meant? I would say that Omega is not because <2|O(1)> does not equal <O(2)|1>.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top