Why adj( U(t)) * U(t) = I where U(t) is a propagator in QM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Propagator Qm
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
This is probably really obvious but can someone explain to me why adjiont( U(t)) * U(t) = I where U(t) is a propagator in QM and I is the identity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't that basically the definition of U?
 
Look at what happens if you time-reverse the Schrödinger equation.
 
ehrenfest said:
This is probably really obvious but can someone explain to me why adjiont( U(t)) * U(t) = I where U(t) is a propagator in QM and I is the identity.

This is not obvious, but can be proven. The time evolution operator U(t) [also known as propagator] must preserve probabilities. E. P. Wigner proved (I think it was in 1931) that this implies that U(t) is a unitary operator (formally, U(t) can be also antiunitary, but this possibility can be discarded on the basis of continuity of U(t)). This result is called "Wigner theorem". The condition you wrote is equivalent to saying that U(t) is a unitary operator.

Eugene.
 
in the language of operator theory, i believe another proof is via Stone's theorem.

it is always a bit startling to realize that many of the properties of QM follow very naturally from the mathematical properties of the Hilbert space. for example, many people are (for some reason) surprised when i tell them that the resolution of the identity, or complete set of states, \sum_i |i><i| = 1 is merely a trivial result of vector calculus, e.g. \vec{v} = \sum_i \vec{e_i} (\vec{e_i} \cdot \vec{v}) with an arbitrary basis
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Back
Top