- #1

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

- #1

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

- #2

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor

- 7,491

- 3,387

<##Ux|Uy##>=<##x|U^*Uy##>=<##x|y##> since U is unitary.

- #3

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

No, no, the reasoning is aimed to<##Ux|Uy##>=<##x|U^*Uy##>=<##x|y##> since U is unitary.

- #4

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor

- 7,491

- 3,387

Unitarity of ##U(t) =e^{-itH}## is trivial since ##U(t)^*=e^{-i^*tH^*}=e^{itH}=U(t)^{-1}##.No, no, the reasoning is aimed toproveunitarity of U.

- #5

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

Does this hold forUnitarity of ##U(t) =e^{-itH}## is trivial since ##U(t)^*=e^{-i^*tH^*}=e^{itH}=U(t)^{-1}##.

- #6

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor

- 7,491

- 3,387

Yes, in units where ##\hbar=1##. Without this restriction, the Schroedinger equationDoes this hold forany[itex]U[/itex]? Are they all expressed as ##U(t) =e^{-itH}##?linear time-development operator

##i \hbar \dot\psi(t)= H\psi(t)## has the solution ##\psi(t)=e^{-itH/\hbar}\psi(0)=U(t)\psi(0)##

where ##U(t):=e^{-itH/\hbar}##.

If the Hamiltonian depends on time, the formula is more complicated (with Texp), and unitarity is easier to see by differentiating ##\langle \phi(t)|\psi(t)\rangle##, showing that it is constant.

- #7

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

Thank you. But still I don't get the proof Susskind is trying to give, so if anyone understands his line of reasoning on this, my question still stands! (peruse my OP!)Yes, in units where ##\hbar=1##. Without this restriction, the Schroedinger equation

##i \hbar \dot\psi(t)= H\psi(t)## has the solution ##\psi(t)=e^{-itH/\hbar}\psi(0)=U(t)\psi(0)##

where ##U(t):=e^{-itH/\hbar}##.

- #8

Strilanc

Science Advisor

- 600

- 216

- #9

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

The postulate of U=unitary is not made! U=unitary is to follow from the postulates he gave in his book, which I tried to describe in my OP. (That is: it is to be proven that U=unitary)

- #10

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

[..]the inner product between [itex]U(t)|i \rangle[/itex] and [itex]U(t)|j \rangle[/itex] should be 1 if [itex]|i \rangle=|j \rangle[/itex]. Why is this so? (Why is the product normalized?)

- #11

Strilanc

Science Advisor

- 600

- 216

Then you missed some of the postulates. Does the book give a definition for "linear time development operator"?The postulate of U=unitary is not made! U=unitary is to follow from the postulates he gave in his book, which I tried to describe in my OP. (That is: it is to be proven that U=unitary)

- #12

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

No, none at all...Does the book give a definition for "linear time development operator"?

- #13

DrClaude

Mentor

- 7,554

- 3,894

- #14

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

Exactly! But

- #15

Strilanc

Science Advisor

- 600

- 216

I'm not sure I believe you. Can you take a picture of the page?No, none at all...

- #16

DrClaude

Mentor

- 7,554

- 3,894

Because of the Born rule. You want probabilities to stay probabilities.Exactly! Butwhyis the norm conserved?!

- #17

Strilanc

Science Advisor

- 600

- 216

- #18

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

Unfortunately the pictures are out of focus...I'm not sure I believe you. Can you take a picture of the page?

- #19

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

But the form [itex]\langle i|M|j \rangle[/itex] isn't a probability, is it? At this point in the book, probabilities are formulated as the product of the inproduct of the eigenvector with the state and the the conjugate of the inproduct of the eigenvector with the state.Because of the Born rule. You want probabilities to stay probabilities.

- #20

DrClaude

Mentor

- 7,554

- 3,894

No, but the evolution operator returns a state.But the form [itex]\langle i|M|j \rangle[/itex] isn't a probability, is it?

Take a quantum system in state ##|\psi\rangle = |i\rangle##. What is the probability that it is in state ##|j\rangle##?

##\langle j | \psi \rangle = \langle j | i \rangle = \delta_{ij}##.

Now, after some time ##t##, what is the probability that the system is in state ##| \phi\rangle \equiv U(t)|j\rangle##?

##\langle \phi | U(t) | \psi \rangle = \langle \phi | U(t) | i \rangle = \langle j | U^\dagger(t) U(t) | i \rangle##

Now, if ##| i \rangle = | j \rangle##, then ##U(t) | \psi \rangle = | \phi \rangle##, so setting

##\langle \phi | U(t) | \psi \rangle = \langle \phi | \phi \rangle = 1##

is the same as taking ##U(t)## to be unitary.

- #21

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

Susskind writes:

*the conservation of distinctions,* which is that ##U(t)## operating on orthogonal states *remains* orthogonal. He illustrates this by taking two different vectors ##|i \rangle## and ##|j \rangle## of an arbitrary orthonormal basis.

He writes:

And then:Susskind said:The state at time t is given by some operation that we call ##U(t)##, acting on the state at time zero. Without further specifying the properties of ##U(t)##, this tells tells us very little except that ##|ψ(t) \rangle## is determined by ##|ψ(0) \rangle##. Let's express this relation with the equation ##|ψ(t) \rangle = U(t)|ψ(0) \rangle##. The operation U is calledthe time-development operatorfor the system.

Then he mentions ##U(t)## requires to obeySusskind said:Conventional quantum mechanics places a couple of requirements on ##U(t)##. First, it requires ##U(t)## to be a linear operator.

He writes:

Take note of the "should be 1" part!Susskind said:On the other hand, ifiandjare the same, then so are the output vectors ##U(t)|i \rangle## and ##U(t)|j \rangle##. In that case, the inner product between them should be 1.

Last edited:

- #22

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

I fail to see why ##\langle \phi | \phi \rangle = 1## if ##| \phi\rangle = U(t)|j\rangle##. Why is the norm conserved? For instance: ##U(t)|j \rangle## could be twice as long as ##|j \rangle##!No, but the evolution operator returns a state.

Take a quantum system in state ##|\psi\rangle = |i\rangle##. What is the probability that it is in state ##|j\rangle##?

##\langle j | \psi \rangle = \langle j | i \rangle = \delta_{ij}##.

Now, after some time ##t##, what is the probability that the system is in state ##| \phi\rangle \equiv U(t)|j\rangle##?

##\langle \phi | U(t) | \psi \rangle = \langle \phi | U(t) | i \rangle = \langle j | U^\dagger(t) U(t) | i \rangle##

Now, if ##| i \rangle = | j \rangle##, then ##U(t) | \psi \rangle = | \phi \rangle##, so setting

##\langle \phi | U(t) | \psi \rangle = \langle \phi | \phi \rangle = 1##

is the same as taking ##U(t)## to be unitary.

Last edited:

- #23

DrClaude

Mentor

- 7,554

- 3,894

The choice of normalizaton is arbitrary, but we should expect that once that choice is made, the equations are consistent and that the norm doesn't change (especially since the norm is related to probabilities).I fail to see why ##\langle \phi | \phi \rangle = 1## if ##| \phi\rangle = U(t)|j\rangle##. Why is the norm conserved? For instance: ##U(t)|j \rangle## could be twice as long as ##|j \rangle##!

- #24

entropy1

Gold Member

- 1,141

- 67

If the normThe choice of normalizaton is arbitrary, but we should expect that once that choice is made, the equations are consistent and that the norm doesn't change (especially since the norm is related to probabilities).

Last edited:

- #25

bhobba

Mentor

- 9,598

- 2,678

To make the math easier so the Born rule can be used it is desirable that states of unit length remain unit length. This implies it must be unitary.Exactly! Butwhyis the norm conserved?! (it doesn't follow from the proof)

There is a deep theorem associated with this Susskind doesn't mention because its advanced (you will learn of it in Ballentine) called Wigners Theroem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_theorem

But don't worry about it for now. As I often say in QM the full story sometimes isn't told at the start - you need to build up to it.

Thanks

Bill

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 692

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 766

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 910

- Last Post

- Replies
- 212

- Views
- 15K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 4K