Transforming Operators with Matrix P

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qubix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Operators
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around transforming operators between two bases in a linear algebra context, specifically using transformation matrices and unitary transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between different bases and the corresponding transformation matrices. There is discussion on whether the transformation of an operator can be achieved using the transpose or inverse of the transformation matrix. Some participants present specific forms of the bases and propose the use of unitary transformations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering different perspectives on the transformation of operators. Some have provided specific matrices and transformations, while others question the conditions under which certain properties hold, such as the relationship between the transpose and inverse of a matrix.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the special case where the transpose of a matrix equals its inverse, which is relevant to the discussion of unitary transformations. Participants are also considering the implications of their assumptions about the bases and transformations involved.

Qubix
Messages
82
Reaction score
1
I have two possible bases (a,b) and (a',b'). If I also have the transformation matrix P, such that
P(a,b)=(a',b'), am I correct in assuming that I can change an operator A, from the (a,b) basis to the (a',b') basis by applying

A' = P_transposed * A * P ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since ##(a',b')## is a basis we can write ##a = c_1a' + c_2b'## for some scalars ##c_1, c_2##.
Similarly, ##b = d_1a' + d_2b'##. The the change of basis matrix, ##P##, from ##(a,b)## to ##(a', b')## is given by:

##P = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
c_1 & d_1 \\
c_2 & d_2 \\ \end{array} \right) ##.

Then ## A' = PAP^{-1} ##.

There are times when you can get away with using the transpose instead of the inverse, but that is only when the transpose is actually equal to the inverse. This is a very special case.
 
So considering I have two bases (a,b) and (a', b'), with

a' = 1/sqr(2) ( a + b)
b' = 1/sqr(2) (a - b)

am I correct in saying that the unitary transformation between them is

U = 1/sqr(2) ## \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
1 & -1 \\ \end{array} \right) ##. ?

and then

Then ## A' = UAU^{-1} ##.
 
Qubix said:
So considering I have two bases (a,b) and (a', b'), with

a' = 1/sqr(2) ( a + b)
b' = 1/sqr(2) (a - b)

am I correct in saying that the unitary transformation between them is

U = 1/sqr(2) ## \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
1 & -1 \\ \end{array} \right) ##. ?

and then

Then ## A' = UAU^{-1} ##.

That looks great. In this case, not only is ##U^T = U^{-1}##. But you have that both of those are ##U## itself.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K