Undergrad Properties of a unitary matrix

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the properties of a unitary matrix, specifically the scattering matrix (S-matrix) in quantum mechanics. The S-matrix is defined through wave functions representing incoming and outgoing states, with components A, B, C, and D indicating ongoing and outgoing waves. A key point raised is the demonstration that S(-p) equals the adjoint S†(p), which involves showing that S* = S† and that S* S = 1, potentially using time-reversal symmetry. The conversation also touches on the implications of assuming real values for the amplitudes and the dependence of the S-matrix on momentum differences. Overall, the discussion seeks a more rigorous understanding of the S-matrix's definition and properties.
JHansen
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Want to show that ##S(-p) =S^\dagger (p)##.
So let's say that we have som unitary matrix, ##S##. Let that unitary matrix be the scattering matrix in quantum mechanics or the "S-matrix".

Now we all know that it can be defined in the following way:
$$\psi(x) = Ae^{ipx} + Be^{-ipx}, x<<0$$ and $$ \psi(x) = Ce^{ipx} + De^{-ipx}$$.
Now, A and D cmpts. are the ongoing waves and B & C the outgoing ones. So we can define the S-matrix by.

$$
\begin{pmatrix}
C\\
B
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
S_{11}& S_{12}\\
S_{21}& S_{22}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
A\\
D
\end{pmatrix}
$$.

Now, of course, we can show that the matrix is unitary via the probability current density (or time-reversal symmetry I think?). Anyway,how would I actually show that ##S(-p) = S^\dagger (p)## ? hmmHere are my thoughts. We notice that letting p -> -p in the wave functions is the same thing as letting i-> -i, i.e. taking the complex conjugate. So what remains to show is that ##S^* = S^\dagger##, or that ##S^* S = 1## as well. And this can be achieved via time-reversal symmetry. But maybe this restricts our potential to be real?I would like something more rigorous to be more certain.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the definition of S(p)?
I can see what is an operator depending on time. is it a field of operators on a vector space?
 
  • Like
Likes JHansen
So I just think p is the momenta. Sorry but I don't have a rigorous definition so I don't really know. But I can prove it with my argument if I assume that A,B,C,D are all real which I'm not certain they are.
 
If the amplitude given by the scalar product <p1|S|p2> only depends on p2-p1 we can write it S(p2-p1). Is it the case here?
 
Last edited:
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K