Transforming Operators with Matrix P

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qubix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Operators
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.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top