For context, I am reading this paper.
Basically, the paper makes reference to "evolving with respect to the time-reversed Hamiltonian". I'm slightly unclear as to what this actually means. Here is my logic:
Let $H$ be some Hamiltonian with eigenstates $|E_n\rangle$. Let $H'$ be the time-reversed Hamiltonian, with eigenstates $|E_n'\rangle$, where $|E_n'\rangle \ = \ \Theta |E_n\rangle$ with $\Theta$ being the time-reversal operator:
$$\Theta \ = \ i Y K$$
where $K$ is the complex conjugation operator, and $Y$ is the Pauli-Y. It follows that $H'$ can be written as:
$$H' \ = \ -\Theta H' \Theta$$
Since, given some $|E_n'\rangle$, we will have:
$$H' |E_n'\rangle \ = \ -\Theta H \Theta |E_n'\rangle \ = \ \Theta H |E_n\rangle \ = \ \Theta E_n |E_n\rangle \ = \ E_n |E_n'\rangle$$
So the time-reversed states are eigenstates of this Hamiltonian. In addition, energy doesn't change under time-reversal, and as you can see, we retain the same energy $E_n$ for a given eigenstate under time-reversal, thus we have uniquely defined the time-reversed Hamiltonian.
I then went on to define time-evolution under this Hamiltonian:
$$e^{-i \gamma H'} \ = \ e^{i \gamma \Theta H \Theta} \ = \ \displaystyle\sum_{n \ = \ 0}^{\infty} \frac{(i \gamma \Theta H \Theta)^n}{n!}$$
We know that $-\Theta^2 \ = \ \mathbb{I}$, as time-reversing a quantum state twice is equivalent to doing nothing. Therefore, all of the middle terms in the product expansion of the numerator of each term will cancel, and we will have:
$$\displaystyle\sum_{n \ = \ 0}^{\infty} \frac{(i \gamma \Theta H \Theta)^n}{n!} \ = \ \displaystyle\sum_{n \ = \ 0}^{\infty} (-i Y K) \frac{(-i \gamma H )^n}{n!} (i Y K) \ = \ Y K \Big( \displaystyle\sum_{n \ = \ 0}^{\infty} \frac{(-i \gamma H )^n}{n!} \Big) Y K \ = \ Y K e^{-i \gamma H} Y K$$
This clearly makes no sense: time-evolution must be unitary and $K$ is anti-unitary.
I highly doubt that my thinking is correct, as I watched a talk given by one of the authors of the paper, and he said that the time-reversed Hamiltonian is "usually" the same as the original Hamiltonian. Where am I going wrong?