Unitary Matrix preserves the norm Proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the norm is preserved under a unitary transformation, specifically showing that = where |w> = A|v> and A is an nxn unitary matrix. The key point is the use of the Hermitian conjugate A†, leading to the conclusion that A†A equals the identity matrix, thus confirming the preservation of the inner product. The confusion arises from the notation and definitions surrounding the inner product and the properties of unitary matrices.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of unitary matrices and their properties
  • Familiarity with complex inner products
  • Knowledge of Hermitian conjugates
  • Basic linear algebra concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of unitary matrices in detail
  • Learn about complex inner products and their applications
  • Explore the significance of Hermitian conjugates in linear algebra
  • Investigate proofs related to norm preservation in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying quantum mechanics or linear algebra, particularly those interested in the properties of unitary transformations and inner product spaces.

RJLiberator
Gold Member
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
63

Homework Statement


Let |v> ∈ ℂ^2 and |w> = A|v> where A is an nxn unitary matrix. Show that <v|v> = <w|w>.

Homework Equations


* = complex conjugate
† = hermitian conjugate

The Attempt at a Solution



Start: <v|v> = <w|w>
Use definition of w
<v|v>=<A|v>A|v>>

Here's the interesting part
Using properties of a complex inner product, we can take out the unitary matrix A on the right hand side. When we do so, what do we get?

Is it A*A or is it A†A ?

If it is A†A this proof is complete, as sine A is unitary, this means A†A = the identity matrix and we get equality.

If the definition is A*A then we have to do more work.

I am getting mixed up, as I'm seeing both definitions floating around and with the abusive notation everywhere it is making me second guess which definition is right.

Is there any clarity on this issue here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for the links. I was aware of the Unitary link, but the other non-English wiki link is of interest.

Although, the language barrier makes it difficult to follow.

They show that
<Ax, Ay> = <x,A^HAy> = <x,A^-1Ay> = <x, Iy> = <x,y>

Kind of similar to what I am doing, I guess, but I'm not sure what "H" is, I am guessing Hermitian conjugate.
So they take the Hermitian conjugate, but then get an inverse somehow, and A^-1*A is clearly the identity.

Still kind of unclear :/
 
RJLiberator said:
Thanks for the links. I was aware of the Unitary link, but the other non-English wiki link is of interest.

Although, the language barrier makes it difficult to follow.

They show that
<Ax, Ay> = <x,A^HAy> = <x,A^-1Ay> = <x, Iy> = <x,y>

Kind of similar to what I am doing, I guess, but I'm not sure what "H" is, I am guessing Hermitian conjugate.
So they take the Hermitian conjugate, but then get an inverse somehow, and A^-1*A is clearly the identity.

Still kind of unclear :/
In the German Wikipedia, ##A^H## is indeed the Hermitian conjugate of ##A##, and then they use the fact that A is a Unitary matrix.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: RJLiberator
So this is a definition of complex inner product =

<Ax,Ay> = <x,A^HAy>

If so, then this is rather easy as A^HA = Identity matrix by definition of Unitary.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K