the situation i want to talk about is the following:
$(H_1,\varphi_1),(H_2,\varphi_2)$ irreducible representation of a $C^*$-algebra $A$. A bounded operator $T:H_1\rightarrow H_2$ such that $T\varphi_1(a)=\varphi_2(a)T$ for all $a\in A$
I am asked to prove the following implication: If $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ are NOT unitarily equivalent, then $T=0$
My ideas for so far: Proof by contradiction: Suppose $T\neq 0$, then $T^*$ exists and is bounded. I want to prove that $T$ is unitary because then we have the situation that both representations are equivalent (unitarily). But therefore i have to show that $T$ is surjective and that $(Tx,Ty)=(x,y)$ for all $x,y$, but this seems to be very difficult or is there something which i don't see and which makes the proof easier? I only know more that non-zero vectors are cyclic vectors since the representations are irreducible but i have no idea how to use it. Or: is the direct implication the better choise?
This is Schur's lemma: the kernel of $T$ is an invariant subspace of $H_1$, hence $0$ or $H_1$ by irreducibility.
If $0$ then T is injective. (However in infinite dim, this does not imply surjective) But the intertwining relation shows that Im(T) is an non zero invariant subspace of $H_2$, i.e. the whole $H_2$.
T is then bijective, and to get a unitary operator, take the polar decomposition of T, the partial isometry part will turn out to be unitary. (not $T$ itself)
else is what we want!