Definitions of parity conservation

  • Thread starter Happiness
  • Start date
  • #1
673
28
Definition 1: The expectation value of the observable related to the parity operator ##\hat{P}## is constant over time. That is,

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}\langle P\rangle=0[/tex]
[tex]\int\Psi^*(r)\ \hat{P}\ \Psi(r)\ dr=constant[/tex]
[tex]\begin{align}\int\Psi^*(r)\ \Psi(-r)\ dr=constant\end{align}[/tex]

Definition 2: If the physical process proceeds in exactly the same way when referred to an inverted coordinate system, then parity is said to be conserved. If, on the contrary, the process has a definite handedness, then parity is not conserved in that physical process.

In particular, the expectation values of all observables ##A##'s are invariant under the parity transformation. That is,

[tex]\begin{align}\int\Psi^*(r)\ \hat{A}\ \Psi(r)\ dr=\int\Psi^*(-r)\ \hat{A}\ \Psi(-r)\ dr\end{align}[/tex]

I suppose both definitions are equivalent. How, then, do we prove (1) implies (2) and vice versa?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
178
18
In particular, the expectation values of all observables ##A##'s are invariant under the parity transformation. That is,

The expectation values of the observables may not be invariant under the parity transformation. Only those observables which commute with [itex]\hat{P}[/itex] will have invariant expectation values. This can be shown as follows
[tex]
\langle \Psi|\hat{A}|\Psi\rangle = \langle \Psi|\hat{A}\hat{P}^\dagger\hat{P}|\Psi\rangle
[/tex]
since parity operator is unitary operator. And now if [itex][\hat{A},\hat{P}^\dagger]=0[/itex], then the above expression becomes
[tex]
\langle \Psi|\hat{P}^\dagger\hat{A}\hat{P}|\Psi\rangle
[/tex]
which proves the equality of equation 2 in OP.

Now if the time evolution of a physical process is invariant under parity that means [itex][\hat{P},\hat{H}]=0[/itex] which further implies [itex]\frac{\partial \hat{P}}{\partial t}=0[/itex].
 
  • Like
Likes Happiness
  • #3
673
28
Now if the time evolution of a physical process is invariant under parity that means [itex][\hat{P},\hat{H}]=0[/itex] which further implies [itex]\frac{\partial \hat{P}}{\partial t}=0[/itex].

Is this a typo? [itex]\frac{\partial \hat{P}}{\partial t}=0[/itex] should be [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle P\rangle=0[/itex]?

In other words, can I say that only for those observables whose expectation values are constant over time, ie., ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle A\rangle=0##, are their expectation values invariant under the parity transformation?

By definition 1, ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle P\rangle=0##, which implies ##[\hat{P}, \hat{H}]=0##. Together with ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle A\rangle=0##, which implies ##[\hat{A}, \hat{H}]=0##, we have ##[\hat{A}, \hat{P}]=0##, which as shown by you, implies its expectation value is invariant under the parity transformation.

How does this imply definition 2? Restricting the class of observables only to those where ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle A\rangle=0## seems to make definition 2 false.
 
  • #4
178
18
Is this a typo? [itex]\frac{\partial \hat{P}}{\partial t}=0[/itex] should be [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle P\rangle=0[/itex]?
Actually I abused the notation. [itex]\frac{\partial \hat{P}_S}{\partial t}=0[/itex] because parity has no intrinsic time dependence. The Heisenberg equation implies [itex]\frac{\partial\hat{P}_H}{\partial t}=0[/itex].

In other words, can I say that only for those observables whose expectation values are constant over time, ie., ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle A\rangle=0##, are their expectation values invariant under the parity transformation?
No.
By definition 1, ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle P\rangle=0##, which implies ##[\hat{P}, \hat{H}]=0##. Together with ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle A\rangle=0##, which implies ##[\hat{A}, \hat{H}]=0##, we have ##[\hat{A}, \hat{P}]=0##, which as shown by you, implies its expectation value is invariant under the parity transformation.
If you have three operators [itex]\hat{A}, \hat{B}\text{ and }\hat{C}[/itex] such that [itex][\hat{A},\hat{B}]=[\hat{B},\hat{C}]=0[/itex]. Then this does not imply that [itex][\hat{A},\hat{C}]=0[/itex].
How does this imply definition 2? Restricting the class of observables only to those where ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle A\rangle=0## seems to make definition 2 false.
The condition/restriction for the expectation values to be parity invariant is that the parity operator should commute with the observable (does not matter if the expectation value of the observable is time varying).

Now definition #2 "If the physical process proceeds in exactly the same way when referred to an inverted coordinate system ..." essentially means that parity operator commutes with the Hamiltonian. My earlier response was asserting that definition #2 implies definition #1.
 
  • Like
Likes Happiness

Related Threads on Definitions of parity conservation

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
549
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
Top