Difference Between T-Odd & T-Violation?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BillKet
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the distinction between T-odd and T-violation in the context of time symmetry in physics, particularly relating to electric dipole moments (EDMs) and their implications in quantum mechanics. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical formulations, and interpretations of time reversal symmetry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the difference between T-odd and T-violation, suggesting that T-odd implies a system changes sign under the T operator while remaining an eigenstate, whereas T-violation suggests a non-commutation with the Hamiltonian.
  • Another participant argues that the electric dipole moment is even under time reversal, while the Hamiltonian derived from the dipole moment and electric field is odd, indicating a violation of time symmetry.
  • Some participants challenge the characterization of the electric field as odd under time reversal, asserting that it is even, and discuss the implications of this for the Hamiltonian's symmetry properties.
  • References to classical texts and papers are made to support claims about the behavior of electric and magnetic dipole moments under time reversal.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between the electric dipole moment and angular momentum, with some participants suggesting that the electric dipole moment is T-even while the magnetic dipole moment is T-odd.
  • One participant highlights that T-odd quantities may not always be observable, emphasizing the need for experimental observables that are fixed by fundamental physics and not even under time reversal.
  • Another participant points out a potential mix-up between the electric dipole moment and the Schiff moment, which is a time-odd pseudo scalar.
  • There is a mention of a quantum mechanical result relating the dipole moment to angular momentum, with some participants agreeing on the classical definition being T-even.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions and implications of T-odd and T-violation. Multiple competing views remain regarding the behavior of electric and magnetic dipole moments under time reversal and their implications for time symmetry.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference classical and quantum mechanical perspectives, indicating that the definitions and behaviors of dipole moments may depend on the context and specific formulations used. There are unresolved questions about the nature of observables related to T-violation.

  • #31
BillKet said:
That doesn't answer my question. We know that nature is not T-symmetric so there is no way to assume it is. But my questions is simply is the electron dipole moment, defined the way it is in the papers I mentioned, T-odd or T-even (I tend to trust those papers with few hundred citations more than Wikipedia or some slides).
vanhees71 said:
Sigh. Is this really so difficult. So let's go step by step. If you have only electromagnetism the world is P, T, C, CP symmstric. The only way some object can have an electric dipole moment then is that it is composed in the usual way by charge distributions. E.g., a water molecule has a large electric dipole moment. Such dipole moments are given as
$$\vec{d}=\int_{V} \mathrm{d}^3 r \vec{r} \rho(\vec{r}),$$
where ##\rho## is the charge distribution.

Now let's consider the time-reversal transformation. By definition the space-time variables transform as
$$t \rightarrow -t, \quad \vec{r} \rightarrow \vec{r}.$$
Electric charge
$$q \rightarrow q.$$
With the transformation properties of ##q## and ##\vec{r}## thus
$$\rho \rightarrow \rho.$$
With the definition of the dipole moment given above this implies
$$\vec{d} \rightarrow \vec{d}.$$
It's T-even, i.e., it doesn't change under T.

Now consider an elementary particle. This can have an electric dipole moment only if this dipole moment is ##\propto \vec{s}##, where ##\vec{s}## is the spin, i.e., an angular momentum. Angular momentum is ##\vec{r} \times \vec{p}##. From the ##T##-transformation properties (we need in addition that by definition ##m \rightarrow m##) it's clar that ##\vec{s} \rightarrow -\vec{s}##, and thus there must be a T-odd contribution to the Hamiltonian ##\propto \vec{E} \cdot \vec{s}##. Now again using the properties of ##T## and the definition of the electric field you get that ##\vec{E} \rightarrow \vec{E}## under ##T## and thus this contribution to the Hamiltonian is ##T## odd and thus violates ##T## symmetry. So you can have an electric dipole moment for an elementary particle only if ##T## (and thus CP) is broken.

Since ##T## and ##CP## is broken by the weak interaction, the electron has, within the standard model, a tiny electric dipole moment due to the weak interaction. This CP violation is too small to explain the matter-antimatter imbalance and that's why one tries to measure the electron's electric dipole moment. So far one is far in accuracy from the predicted dipole moment from the standard model. So the hope is that one finds nevertheless an electric dipole moment which with the given sensitivity then was some orders of magnitude larger than the standard-model value, and this would indicate new physics leading to larger CP violation which then in turn may explain the matter-antimatter imbalance. So far, however, no electric dipole moment of an electron has been found given the sensitivity of the experiments. There's only an upper bound, which is already very remarkable given the difficulty of this measurement.

If you need an RMP to be convinced, take that one:

https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.63.313
Thank you for this! I will check that paper. However I still have a question (again please check this paper), as I am still not sure how to reconcile these 2 definitions. So in equation (1), they use the same formula as you did: $$\vec{d}=\int\vec{r}\rho d^3r$$ According to your argument, this definition implies the electric dipole moment is T-even. Also in equation (1) of the same paper they say: $$\vec{d}=d\frac{<\vec{J}>}{J}$$ assuming that d and J are scalars (i.e. modulus of some vectors) and in the case of the electron ##\vec{J}=\vec{s}## and also given what you said that under T, ##\vec{s} \to -\vec{s}##, this implies that under T, ##\vec{d} \to -\vec{d}##, so the electron EDM is T-odd. So based on equation (1) and your derivations above, 2 different expressions for the same object (electron EDM), are one of them T-odd, one of the T-even. At this point this is just an equality between some vectors, and just applying the transformations under T that you mentioned, I get a contradiction. I am still not sure what is wrong with my logic here. Where is the flow in my argument?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
The point is that when you have ##T## violation the electric dipole moment is neither even nor odd, because if there are "fundamental electric dipole moments" you have this ##T##-odd contribution from these fundamental dipole moments but also the usual ##T##-even contribution for induced dipole moments. So ##T## symmetry is explicitly broken, and that's the case in the Standard model for the weak interaction only. So ##T## symmetry is a very good approximation for everything where the weak interaction can be neglected.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K