Correlation funciton of a system with translational symmetry

Jeremy1986
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Hi guys,
i have been confused by one statement on the spatial correlation funciton in the statistical physics textbook. They say for a spatial correlation function f(x1,x2), where x1 and x2 are the coordinate of particle 1 and 2, if the system has translational symmetry, then f depends only on the distance between 1 and 2, not on the coordinates of the particles. That is, f(x1-x2)=f(|x1-x2|) in this case.
i mean this sounds reasonable, but i just can't tell why. i am wondering if there is a solid demonstration on this. Could anybody give me some explanation on this? Thanks a lot for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have a translationally invariant situation, the correlation function must be translational invariant, because otherwise the system wouldn't be. That means that
$$f(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2)=F(\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2).$$
It doesn't tell you that the situation is also isotropic. Only then you can argue further that
$$F(\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2)=G(|\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2|).$$
 
vanhees71 said:
If you have a translationally invariant situation, the correlation function must be translational invariant, because otherwise the system wouldn't be. That means that
$$f(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2)=F(\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2).$$
It doesn't tell you that the situation is also isotropic. Only then you can argue further that
$$F(\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2)=G(|\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2|).$$
Thanks vanhees71,
yes, you are right. the second relation holds only if the system has rotational symmetry at the same time. but i don't quite understand the first relation. the textbook gives a denmonstration of the first relation as follows
for f(x1,x2), if we translate the system by x2, then f(x1,x2)=f(x1-x2,0) ,which means that f(x1,x2) depends only on x1-x2.
Here, i think in this case the translational invariant means that the system stay unchanged after translating with any vector. this is different from the translational symmetry we talk about for crystal, because in crytals the system stays unchanged only if you translate it with certain vectors, the basic vertors. I don't know if i am right.
 
Sure, translation invariance means that the function must obey
$$f(\vec{x}_1+\vec{a},\vec{x}_2+\vec{a})=f(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2)$$
for all ##\vec{a} \in \mathbb{R}^3##. For a crystal that's of course not the case anymore on a scale, where you resolve the microscopic structure. Then it's only translationally invariant for some discrete set of vectors. I'd call this periodic rather than translationally invariant.
 
vanhees71 said:
Sure, translation invariance means that the function must obey
$$f(\vec{x}_1+\vec{a},\vec{x}_2+\vec{a})=f(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2)$$
for all ##\vec{a} \in \mathbb{R}^3##. For a crystal that's of course not the case anymore on a scale, where you resolve the microscopic structure. Then it's only translationally invariant for some discrete set of vectors. I'd call this periodic rather than translationally invariant.

with your kind help, i got better understanding of spatial correlation function. but i have a final puzzle,

for solids or liquids, especially the amorphous solid, they use this kind of spatial correlation function, the so called pair distribution function. in the figure below, there is a definition of such pair distribution function, notice the red-underlined parts
0b67a764b0521355.jpg


So in this case, of amorphous solids or homogeneous fluid, why the translation invariance holds?

ps:i use an external website to upload the image, i can see the image myself, and i don't know if it works for you.
 
vanhees71 said:
Sure, translation invariance means that the function must obey
$$f(\vec{x}_1+\vec{a},\vec{x}_2+\vec{a})=f(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2)$$
for all ##\vec{a} \in \mathbb{R}^3##. For a crystal that's of course not the case anymore on a scale, where you resolve the microscopic structure. Then it's only translationally invariant for some discrete set of vectors. I'd call this periodic rather than translationally invariant.

so do you mean a solid is macroscopic translational invariant? if we translate it with some distance in macroscopic scale, that solid still stay as it just changed its position. can we call it macroscopic translational invariant? but translational invariant needs both macroscopic or microscopic, so the above relation f(x1-x2)=f(x1-x2) does not hold. am i right?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
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...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top