Is the Discrete Fourier Transform a Unitary Transformation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) is a unitary transformation. The initial approach involved representing the DFT in matrix form and attempting to multiply it by its complex conjugate. Participants pointed out the necessity of including the normalization factor of 1/√N for the matrix to be unitary. It was clarified that the inverse of a unitary matrix is its adjoint, not the complex conjugate, which is crucial for demonstrating that the product yields the identity matrix. Understanding these concepts is essential for correctly proving the unitarity of the DFT.
Emperor42
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to prove that the discrete form of the Fourier transform is a unitary transformation

So I used the equation for the discrete Fourier transform:
##y_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum^{N-1}_{j=0}{x_je^{i2\pi\frac{jk}{N}}}##

and I put the Fourier transform into a N-1 by N-1 matrix form:
##U=\begin{pmatrix}
e^0 & e^0 & e^0 & ...\\
e^0 & e^{\frac{i2\pi}{N}} & e^{\frac{i4\pi}{N}} & ...\\
e^0 & e^{\frac{i4\pi}{N}} & e^{\frac{i8\pi}{N}} & ...\\
... & ... & ... & ...\\
\end{pmatrix}##

and then found the complex conjugate:
##U^*=\begin{pmatrix}
e^0 & e^0 & e^0 & ...\\
e^0 & e^{-\frac{i2\pi}{N}} & e^{-\frac{i4\pi}{N}} & ...\\
e^0 & e^{-\frac{i4\pi}{N}} & e^{-\frac{i8\pi}{N}} & ...\\
... & ... & ... & ...\\
\end{pmatrix}##

But if I multiply these matrices together I get nothing which even approaches the identity matrix. Anyone have any ideas? Is there something wrong with the matrix?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You omitted the factor of ##1/\sqrt{N}##. Without it, the matrix won't be unitary. Also, the inverse of a unitary matrix is its adjoint, not the complex conjugate.
 
I understand that I haven't put in the ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}##. But why do I need the inverse? I'm trying to calculate whether the matrix is unitary so I need to find the inner product of the matrix and its complex conjugate, wouldn't I?
 
Last edited:
Ok I think I can get the diagonal elements to go to if I add the ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}## factor but I still don't understand how the off diagonal elements go to zero.
 
Emperor42 said:
I understand that I haven't put in the ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}##. But why do I need the inverse? I'm trying to calculate whether the matrix is unitary so I need to find the inner product of the matrix and its complex conjugate, wouldn't I?
No. Unitary means that the inverse of the matrix is its adjoint. In other words, if you multiply a unitary matrix by its adjoint (not conjugate), you get the identity matrix, which is what you're trying to show.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top