
#1
Jan613, 07:55 PM

P: 962

It seems the uncertainty principle, the commutator between operators, and the symmetry of the action integral are all related. And I wonder how universal this is.
For example, the action integral is invariant with respect to time, and this leads to conserved quantity of energy. This means that the energy will remain the same for any time translation. In other words, if we know the energy exactly, then the time variable could be anything and we don't know the time variable with any precision. This sounds like the uncertainty principle between time and energy. Or again, if the action integral is invariant wrt space translations, then the momentum is conserved. And when momentum is conserved, then we know what the momentum is exactly, but the space varaible could be anything. And this sounds like the uncertainty principle between position and momentum. It seems the uncertainty principle can be derived from commutation relations, as shown here. For the commutator not being zero means we cannot measure both observables at the same tiem, which mean if we know one precisely, then we can't know the other precisely. And as I recall, commutation relations can be derived from symmetries, as shown here. So can commutators and uncertainty principles be developed from any continuous symmetry of the action integral? For example, could a commutator and an uncertainty principle be derive between electric charge and phase angle? For electric charge is the conserved quantity of phase invariance of the action integral. 



#2
Jan613, 10:40 PM

P: 647

I think the idea is pretty cool, and honestly, I don't know enough to say much on the matter at the moment. I will think a little more about it though, cause it's a cute idea.
As for the phase and charge commutator, the conserved quantity for, say, a charged scalar field with a global U(1) invariance is something like [tex] N = \text{number of +1s} + \text{number of 1s}=\text{total charge} [/tex] however, the phase angle for a global symmetry is a cnumber, it's just a good ole fashion number... so it commutes with everything. Even if you make the symmetry local (which buys you nothing), the phase as a function of the coordinate is still a scalar function, not an operator, and so it commutes also. 



#3
Jan613, 10:42 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 2,194





#4
Jan713, 02:01 AM

P: 973

Uncertainty, Symmetry, and Commutators
I have not seen anywhere that commutators are a result of symmetry.Commutators and uncertainty principles are result of First quantization.They are not related to symmetry as far as I know.




#5
Jan713, 07:46 AM

P: 21

Most sources as far as I know use the commutation relations as the most basic principle.
All else builds on that. Continuous symmetries can be related through the generators of symmetry, for example, the generator of xtranslation is exp^(i p a); 'a' being the distance shifted. This however can be deduced easily from the commutation relation. 



#6
Jan713, 01:12 PM

P: 962

I think one answer may be that classically time and energy are treated as real numbers. Then any commutator between them is zero. But in QM they are treated as operators, or at least energy is treated as an operator (the Hamiltonian), and that's where commutators become nonzero. Does this sound right? 



#7
Jan713, 04:48 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,863

Energy and time can be measured (also) in a quantum setting with any precision one desires, i.e. with the maximum precision that the measurement apparatus can offer. There's no bound here.




#8
Jan713, 05:03 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,002





#9
Jan713, 07:41 PM

P: 962

What I'm beginning to take from the responses so far is that my intuition may be faulty at this point. But I think it is worth considering. 



#10
Jan713, 11:03 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,002

The commutator in QM is the commutator mentioned under rings, not groups. But it is usually groups that are related to symmetry, so that seems a false relation to me. The other possible false relation is that the commutator is related to a quantity called the "action" in semiclassical BohrSommerfeld quantization. The Lagrangian, to which Noether's theorem about symmetry applies, is also related to a quantity called the "action". However, these are not the same (maybe very indirectly related). In the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29 , the action related to the Lagrangian is described under the heading "Action (functional)" while the "action" that is quantized in semiclassical quantization is described under the heading "Action of a generalized coordinate". Usually the commutator is defined in the Hamiltonian or "canonical" formalism. The commutator is defined between "canonically conjugate" variables or operators. The Hamiltonian is then specified in terms of the canonically conjugate operators. From the Hamiltonian you can get to a Lagrangian and the path intergal formalism. Since the commutator between canonically conjugate variables is defined before specifying the Hamiltonian, it doesn't seem to me that any symmetries are needed to specify the commutator. Alternatively, if you start from a Lagrangian, you can define canonically conjugate variables, eg. the first 2 lines on p3 of http://itp1.unistuttgart.de/lehre/v...ortrag_Bek.pdf. Once you have canonically conjugate variables, the standard procedure is that these become operators and are related via a commutator. However it again doesn't seem that one needs any symmetry of the Lagrangian to define canonically conjugate variables. Perhaps your best bet is that later on p2324 of the same document, Bek describes semiclassical "torus quantization" via the "action" of an "integrable" system  and "integrability" usually means the system has lots of symmetries. However, in full quantum theory, you can write the commutator even for nonintegrable Hamiltonians. 



#11
Jan913, 02:35 PM

P: 962

It would seem that as soon as one sees commutators one would try to think in terms of generators of a group that represent the symmetry of something. And then when you see that these generators in the commutator are linked to symmetries of the Lagrangian, like space invariance and conserved momentum, or like time invariance and conserved energy, then you would try to find a connection between the generators in the commutators and symmetries in the Lagrangian. I find it strange that this not made obvious in books as to whether this connection is or is not the case. 



#12
Jan913, 02:51 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,002

The commutator that is usually related to a conserved quantity involves the Hamiltonian. If a quantity commutes with the Hamiltonian, then it is conserved.
I don't know if the Noether symmetries of the Lagrangian produce all conserved quantities. 



#13
Jan913, 03:53 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,863





#14
Jan913, 04:12 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,002





#15
Jan913, 04:36 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,863

The integrability of the system of Hamilton's EOM through socalled 'prime integrals' is equivalent to the integrability of the system of EulerLagrange's EOM through the same 'prime integrals', since the 2 systems of ODE's are equivalent i.e. one system can be transformed into the other.




#16
Jan913, 04:42 PM

P: 962





#17
Jan913, 04:44 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,002

Also, does everything carry over from classical to quantum? 



#18
Jan913, 05:27 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 815

[tex][ i \mathcal{ H } ( x ) , Q ] = \partial_{ \mu } J^{ \mu } =0 ,[/tex] where [tex]H = \int d^{ 3 } x \ \mathcal{ H } ( x ) ,[/tex] is the Hamiltonian, [tex]Q = \int d^{ 3 } x \ J^{ 0 } ( x ),[/tex] is the timeindependent Noether charge of a symmetry, and [itex]J^{ \mu }[/itex] is the conserved Noether current of that symmetry. Integration followed by exponentiation yield the invariance of the Hamiltonian under the symmetry group in question: [tex]H = U^{ \dagger } H U ,[/tex] where [tex]U = \exp (  i \alpha Q ) .[/tex] Sam 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Symmetry Groups Algebras Commutators Conserved Quantities  Linear & Abstract Algebra  1  
[Holography] Global symmetry in boundary corresponds to gauge symmetry in bulk?  Beyond the Standard Model  14  
Do violations in CP symmetry/Parity symmetry make the math more difficult?  Quantum Physics  0  
uncertainty principle, relating the uncertainty in position to the uncertainty  Advanced Physics Homework  3  
Does the uncertainty principle break symmetry?  Quantum Physics  5 