Show that if H is a hermitian operator, U is unitary

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if H is a Hermitian operator, then the operator U defined as U = eiH is unitary. The proof involves demonstrating that UU† = I, where U† is the adjoint of U. Participants clarify that U = U† does not suffice for proving unitarity and emphasize the need to correctly evaluate (eiH)†. The final conclusion asserts that U is indeed unitary when H is Hermitian, as shown by the relation UU† = eiHe-iH = I.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics
  • Knowledge of unitary matrices and their properties
  • Familiarity with the exponential of operators, specifically eiH
  • Basic linear algebra concepts, including adjoint operators
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the implications of unitary transformations in quantum systems
  • Explore the derivation of the exponential of operators, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the relationship between Hermitian operators and observable quantities
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in quantum mechanics, physicists working with operator theory, and anyone studying the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics will benefit from this discussion.

Vitani11
Messages
275
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Show that if H is a hermitian operator, then U = eiH is unitary.

Homework Equations


UU = I for a unitary matrix
A=A for hermitian operator
I = identity matrix

The Attempt at a Solution


Here is what I have. U = eiH multiplying both by U gives UU = eiHU then replacing U with U-1 (a property of unitary matrices) I have UU = eiHU-1 and so UU = eiHe-iH = ei(H-H)=e0 = 1 = I. I don't think this is right though...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vitani11 said:
Here is what I have. U = eiH multiplying both by U† gives UU† = eiHU† then replacing U† with U-1 (a property of unitary matrices) I have UU† = eiHU-1 and so UU† = eiHe-iH = ei(H-H)=e0 = 1 = I. I don't think this is right though...

The bit I've underlined shows you assuming what you are supposed to prove.

You need to show that ##UU^{\dagger} = I## without assuming it!
 
Oh crap... okay I think I did it without that assumption. Here: U = eiH = ei(H†) = (eiH) = U therefore since U = U this proves it. What do you think?
 
Vitani11 said:
Oh crap... okay I think I did it without that assumption. Here: U = eiH = ei(H†) = (eiH) = U therefore since U = U this proves it.

That claims to prove that ##U = U^{\dagger}##, which is not what you are trying to prove. What you have is not right. You need to think more carefully about what ##(e^{iH})^{\dagger}## should be.
 
Last edited:
Wait, is it even possible to go ahead and write that ei(H) is equal to (eiH)? because that is the same as treating the dagger symbol as some exponent. I will continue working on this and be back soon.
 
U = eiH, U = (e-iH) = e-iH so multiplying the first equation by this on both sides yields UU = eiHe-iH = ei(H-H)=e0 = 1.
 
Vitani11 said:
U = eiH, U = (e-iH) = e-iH so multiplying the first equation by this on both sides yields UU = eiHe-iH = ei(H-H)=e0 = 1.

That looks better. Although, you should show why ##H## must be Hermitian.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K