Understanding Basis Change with Hamiltonian Matrices

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of Hamiltonian matrices in different bases, specifically focusing on the transition from one orthonormal basis to another. Participants explore the implications of basis changes in quantum mechanics, including the mathematical formulations involved and the conceptual understanding of matrix representations in various bases.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about what it means for a matrix to be represented in a particular basis and questions why the Hamiltonian H is represented in the standard basis of vectors (1,0) and (0,1).
  • Another participant references an FAQ post to address the initial question about matrix representations of linear transformations.
  • A different participant questions why the basis change equation simplifies for orthonormal bases to calculating elements using inner products of the new basis vectors with the old basis vectors.
  • A later reply introduces a linear operator U that transforms old basis vectors to new ones and attempts to prove that U must be unitary, providing a mathematical derivation to support this claim.
  • The same participant explains how the components of the Hamiltonian in the new basis can be expressed in terms of the original Hamiltonian using the relationship H' = SHS^-1, emphasizing the equivalence of the two formulations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the implications of basis changes and the mathematical formulations involved. There is no consensus on the conceptual clarity of these ideas, and multiple viewpoints on the simplifications and interpretations of the basis change equations remain present.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the assumption that both bases are orthonormal, which may limit the generality of the discussion. The derivations presented rely on specific properties of unitary operators and inner products, which may not be universally applicable without further clarification.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
We are given the vectors la> = (1,0) and lb> = (0,1) and then a Hamiltonian H which is a 2x2 matrix with 2 on the diagonal entires and zero elsewhere. I am asked to now represent H in the basis of the vectors la'> = 1/sqrt(2)(1,1) and lb'> = 1/sqrt(2)(1,-1), which are also eigenvectors of H because of the degeneracy of the eigenvalues of H.
I always get confused with these basis-change problems. First of all: What does it even mean that a matrix is represented in a particular basis? Why is H necessarily represented in the basis (1,0) and (0,1)?
Secondly I know that the basis change equation is:
H' = SHS^-1 (1)
But my QM also tells me that the elements of H' can be found by taking the inner products <a'lHla'>, <a'lHlb'> etc. How is this equivalent to (1)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
What does it even mean that a matrix is represented in a particular basis?
See this FAQ post: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/matrix-representations-of-linear-transformations.694922/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay but I am still not sure why for an orthonormal basis the basis change equation:
B = SAS^-1
Reduces to just calculating B using the equations B_ij = <bil A lbj> , where b1,b2,b3... are the new basis vectors of the new basis expressed in the old basis.
 
I didn't have time to answer that before. Let U be the linear operator that takes the old basis vectors to the new, i.e. ##e_i'=Ue_i##. I'll start by proving that this U must be unitary (assuming that both bases are orthonormal). For all i,j, we have
$$\langle e_i,e_j\rangle =\delta_{ij}=\langle e_i',e_j'\rangle =\langle Ue_i,Ue_j\rangle =\langle e_i,U^\dagger U e_j\rangle,$$ and therefore
$$\langle e_i,(I-U^\dagger U)e_j\rangle =0.$$ This implies that for all j and all vectors x, we have
$$\langle x,(I-U^\dagger U)e_j\rangle =\left\langle\sum_{i=1}^2 x_i e_i,(I-U^\dagger U)e_j\right\rangle =\sum_{i=1}^2 (x_i)^* \langle e_i,(I-U^\dagger U)e_j\rangle =0.$$ In particular, this holds when ##x=(I-U^\dagger U)e_j##. That implies that for all j, we have ##(I-U^\dagger U)e_j=0##. This implies that ##U^\dagger U=I##.

Now if we define ##S=U^{-1}## and use that ##U^\dagger=U^{-1}##, we have
\begin{align}
H'_{ij}=\langle e_i',He_j'\rangle = \langle Ue_i,HUe_j\rangle =\langle e_i,U^\dagger HUe_j\rangle =(U^\dagger HU)_{ij} =(SHS^{-1})_{ij}
\end{align} In other words, the components of ##H## in the primed basis are the same as the components of ##SHS^{-1}## in the unprimed basis.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: aaaa202

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K