Translation Invariant: Seeing it Intuitively & Mathematically

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
How do I see that when my hamiltonian is translation invariant i.e. H = H(r-r') it means that it is diagonal in the momentum basis? I can see it intuitively but not mathematically.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you can show that ##[\hat p, \hat H] = 0## then you have shown that ##\hat p## and ##\hat H## can be simultaneously diagonalized, which is what you are after.
 
With your definition of translational invariance (if I understood it, it is invariance with respect to coordinate shifts) the hydrogen atom Hamiltonian is translationally invariant, because the potential energy term is function of ##|\mathbf r_1 - \mathbf r_2|##. But this Hamiltonian is not diagonal in the momentum basis.
 
the 'true' hydrogen atom Hamiltonian should be diagonal in the momentum basis. But usually people just talk about a central potential, and ignore the nucleus, since it is much heavier than the electron. Once we make this approximation of a central potential and ignore the nucleus, the potential energy term now depends on absolute spatial position, so the Hamiltonian is translationally variant.
 
Even if the Hamiltonian
$$
\hat{H} = \frac{\hat{\mathbf{p}}_1^2}{2m_1} + \frac{\hat{\mathbf{p}}_2^2}{2m_2} - \frac{Kq^2}{4\pi} \frac{1}{|\mathbf r_1 - \mathbf r_2|},
$$
is translationally invariant, I do not think it is diagonal in the momentum basis ##\mathbf p_1, \mathbf p_2##. Only the sum of the two momentum operators commutes with the Hamiltonian, but the momentum operators individally do not.
 
Rewrite the Hamiltonian in terms of the CM motion and the relative motion, i.e., in terms of the new variables
\vec{R}=\frac{m_1 \vec{r}_1 + m_2 \vec{r}_2}{m_1+m_2}, \quad \vec{P}=\vec{p_1}+\vec{p}_2, \quad \vec{r}=\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2, \quad \vec{p}=\frac{m_2 \vec{p}_1-m_1 \vec{p}_2}{m_1+m_2}.
Then you can show that \vec{P}, \vec{H}, \vec{l}^2 and l_z with the orbital angular momentum of the relative motion
\vec{l}=\vec{r}\times \vec{p}
form a complete set of observables.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top