4
$\begingroup$

Given the unitary operator $U=1+i\varepsilon F$ (where $\varepsilon$ is an infinitesimal scalar), in order to prove that $F$ is Hermitian:

$$\begin{align} UU^{\dagger} &= 1 \\ (1+i\varepsilon F) (1-i\varepsilon F^\dagger) &= 1 \\ 1+i\varepsilon F-i\varepsilon F^\dagger +\varepsilon^2 FF^\dagger &= 1 \end{align}$$

It seems that $F$ must be equal to $F^\dagger$ to satisfy that expression, but how can the remaining term be equal to zero? $(\varepsilon^2 FF^\dagger\overset{\large\text{?}} = 0)$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I've removed some comments that were attempting to answer the question. Remember that comments should be used for suggesting improvement, requesting clarification, and sometimes linking to related resources. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Commented Oct 9, 2017 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ More on infinitesimals: physics.stackexchange.com/q/92925/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/70376/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented Oct 11, 2017 at 8:23

4 Answers 4

6
$\begingroup$

On the other hand, if you want keep terms to $\epsilon^2$, you need to include those in you expansion as well, i.e. $U\approx 1+i \epsilon F - \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^2 F^2$ as those will have contributions through cross terms when you expand $$ UU^\dagger\approx 1 +i \epsilon (F-F^\dagger) -\frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \left(F^2 - FF^\dagger - F^\dagger F + (F^\dagger)^2\right)+\ldots $$

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ @J.G. Thanks for catching my error with the ordering. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 9, 2017 at 17:10
6
$\begingroup$

The whole point here is that $U$ is an infinitesimal unitary transformation and so we neglect terms of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2)$ since they are by definition negligible to $\mathcal O(\varepsilon)$. Thus,

$$UU^\dagger=(1+i\varepsilon F)(1-i\varepsilon F) = 1+ i\varepsilon(F-F^\dagger) + \mathcal O(\varepsilon^2) = 1$$

from which we see $F= F^\dagger$, i.e. $F$ must be Hermitian. Note however it is not always the case that we keep terms of linear order only.

For example, in Sakurai's derivation of the commutation relations for infinitesimal rotations, terms of order $\mathcal O(\epsilon^2)$ are kept, so it depends somewhat on context.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ See Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics Sec. 3.1 (esp. Eq. (3.1.18), viz. $\left[ 1-\frac{iJ_{x}\varepsilon}{\hbar}-\frac{J_{x}^{2}\varepsilon^{2}}{2\hbar^{2}},\,1-\frac{iJ_{y}\varepsilon}{\hbar}-\frac{J_{y}^{2}\varepsilon^{2}}{2\hbar^{2}}\right] =-\frac{iJ_{z}\varepsilon^{2}}{\hbar}+o\left(\varepsilon^{2}\right)$). $\endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Commented Oct 9, 2017 at 17:29
2
$\begingroup$

Since $\epsilon$ is infinitesimal, the $\epsilon^2FF^+$ term can be neglected. Only keep terms to first order in $\epsilon$.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

You can think of this whole derivation in a different way: you have a family $U(t)$ of unitary operators (continuously) parametrised by $t$, such that $U(t_1+t_2) = U(t_1)U(t_2)$ (think translation). It follows that $U(0)=1$. Furthermore, you call $U'(0)=i F$ (derivative!), such that $U(\epsilon)$'s first-order Taylor expansion looks like $U(\epsilon) = 1 + i\epsilon F$. You want to show that $F = -i U'(0)$ is hermitian, so you differentiate $U(t)U^\dagger(t) = 1$ at $t=0$: $$ 0 = U'(0)U^\dagger(0) + U(0)U^{\dagger\prime}(0) = U'(0)1 + 1U^{\dagger\prime}(0) = iF + (-iF^\dagger) = i (F - F^{\dagger}) $$

This way, you show that the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{u}(n)$ of the Lie group $U(n)$ of unitary matrices consists of anti-hermitian matrices (= $i$ times hermitian matrices).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Excellent answer. It can formalized even further with the hypothesis of Stone's theorem. $\endgroup$
    – DanielC
    Commented Oct 11, 2017 at 8:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.