1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Unitary and self-adjoint operators

  1. Sep 19, 2012 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Let U and A be two linear maps related by U=e^iA. Show that U is unitary if A is self-adjoint. Give a counterexample to show that U can be unitary if A is not self-adjoint.


    2. Relevant equations
    Self-adjoint: A*=A


    3. The attempt at a solution
    OK, so I had no problem with the first part. It's easy to show that U dagger=U inverse. However, I'm having some trouble coming up with a counter example for the second part. I tried something anti-Hermitian, but that just shows that U is self-adjoint, not that it is unitary.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 19, 2012 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Write out what it means that [itex]UU^*=I=U^*U[/itex]. What could go wrong?
     
  4. Sep 19, 2012 #3
    Wait. What do you mean "what could go wrong"? I need to show that U can be unitary even if A isn't self-adjoint by way of an example.
     
  5. Sep 19, 2012 #4

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I didn't phrase that the best way as I could.

    So, indeed, you need to find a non-self-adjoint matrix A such that [itex]U=e^{iA}[/itex] is unitary. So, assume that U is unitary, then [itex]UU^*=I=U^*U[/itex]. What does that mean for A??
     
  6. Sep 19, 2012 #5
    [itex]UU^*=(e^{iA})(e^{iA})^+=(e^{iA})^+(e^{iA})=U^*U[/itex]

    I feel like this is really simple; I wonder why I'm not seeing it.
     
  7. Sep 19, 2012 #6

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    OK, so you want [itex]UU^*=I=UU^*[/itex]. You indeed say that this is the same as

    [tex](e^{iA})(e^{iA})^+=I=(e^{iA})^+(e^{iA})[/tex]

    Now, do you know what [itex](e^{iA})^+[/itex] is?? Can you write it in another way??
     
  8. Sep 19, 2012 #7
    [itex](e^{iA})^+=e^{-iA^+}[/itex]
     
  9. Sep 19, 2012 #8

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    OK, so now you have

    [tex]e^{iA}e^{-iA^+}=I=e^{-iA^+}e^{iA}[/tex]

    Now, what happens if you use [itex]e^{A+B}=e^A e^B[/itex]?? (I know the rule isn't always valid for matrices, but let's assume [itex]AA^+=A^+A[/itex], in that case the rule is valid).
     
  10. Sep 19, 2012 #9
    You get [tex]e^{i(-A^++A)}=I=e^{i(A-A^+)}[/tex].
     
  11. Sep 19, 2012 #10

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    OK, so what did we find now? We found out that if A isn't self-adjoint, then there are two ways that [itex]e^{iA}[/itex] could still be unitary.

    Either, [itex]B=A+A^+[/itex] is a matrix such that [itex]e^{iB}=I[/itex].
    Or [itex]AA^+\neq A^+A[/itex].

    One of those two things must hold for A.

    Let's focus on the second one, can you find a matrix such that [itex]AA^+\neq A^+A[/itex].
     
  12. Sep 19, 2012 #11
    I think I can come up with a matrix, but can't we just treat these as operators, too? How about the ladder operator in QM. It is non-Hermitian; i.e. [itex]AA^+\neq A^+A[/itex].
     
  13. Sep 19, 2012 #12

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    The condition [itex]AA^+=A^+A[/itex] is known as "normal".
    But anyway, what do you mean with the ladder operator??
    Matrices are fine examples of operators. Matrices are exactly the operators on a finite dimensional space. So any counterexamples you find as matrices will be a counterexample of operators.
     
  14. Sep 19, 2012 #13
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator#Ladder_operator_method

    I am terrible at Latex, so I'm just linking to Wikipedia. I think this makes sense, right?
     
  15. Sep 19, 2012 #14

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Oh, those. I call them shift operators :smile:

    Anyway, maybe those ladder operators work, but for that you got to calculate [itex]e^{iA}[/itex] and that seems a little tedious.
    The easiest calculations are, in my opinion, with matrices.
     
  16. Sep 19, 2012 #15
    OK, how about let A=({2,3}, {-2,1})? I think that works.
     
  17. Sep 19, 2012 #16

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    OK, but the calculations are a bit annoying. Can't we find a matrix whose exponential can easily be calculated? For example, try a nilpotent matrix.
     
  18. Sep 19, 2012 #17
    OK, how about ({0,1}, {0,0})?
     
  19. Sep 19, 2012 #18

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Yes, try that one! What do you get?
     
  20. Sep 19, 2012 #19
    You get A dagger does not commute with A, as we wanted. What else do I need to show?
     
  21. Sep 19, 2012 #20
    What do I need to show from there?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Unitary and self-adjoint operators
  1. Self Adjoint Operator (Replies: 9)

  2. Self-adjoint operator (Replies: 1)

Loading...