Showing Unitary Operator U is a Fraction of Hermitian Operators

  • Thread starter Thread starter erogard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator
erogard
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have to show that a unitary operator U can be written as

<br /> U=\frac{\mathbf{1}+iK}{\mathbf{1}-iK}<br />

where K is a Hermitian operator.

Now how could you possibly have a fraction of operators if those can be represented by matrices? Not sure what to do here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Also doesn't the equality fail for when U=-1 (the negative of a 1 matrix)? No matter what K is I can't see how it would hold since we'd basically end up with -1 + iK = 1 + iK
 
Hi erogard,

First think about what an Unitary operator is by definition.

with just a quick look at wikipedia you'll be able to see that
\begin{equation}
U^{*}U = UU^* = I
\end{equation}
so given that K is hermitian
\begin{equation}
K^*=K
\end{equation}
and that
\begin{equation}
I^*I = II^*=I
\end{equation}
just see if the above identity holds,

Nik
 
erogard said:
Hi,

I have to show that a unitary operator U can be written as

<br /> U=\frac{\mathbf{1}+iK}{\mathbf{1}-iK}<br />

where K is a Hermitian operator.

Now how could you possibly have a fraction of operators if those can be represented by matrices? Not sure what to do here.

Stuff written like that generally just means inverse eg
A=\frac{1}{\mathbf{(1-B)}}=\mathbf{(1-B)}^{-1}

So you just want to show that U us unitary eg UU^{\dagger}=U^{\dagger}U=I (where\dagger is the hermitian conjugate operation)
Which is a pretty simple operation
 
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