Does time reversal symmetry imply hermicity of s-matrix?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of time reversal symmetry on the hermiticity of the S-matrix in quantum field theory. Participants explore the relationships between time reversal, parity, and charge conjugation, as well as their effects on state transitions and probabilities. The conversation includes technical reasoning and conceptual clarifications regarding the properties of these symmetries.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that for time reversal symmetry to hold, the S-matrix must be Hermitian, as indicated by the equality of transition probabilities.
  • Others argue that a complete time reversal involves not just exchanging initial and final states but also flipping momenta and spin, leading to a different implication for the S-matrix.
  • There is a proposal to consider the combined effect of parity and time reversal (PT) on the S-matrix, questioning whether PT-invariant theories must have symmetric transition probabilities.
  • Participants discuss the role of antiparticles in relation to time reversal and parity, debating whether the antiparticle process corresponds to a time-reversal transformation or a PT transformation.
  • Some contributions highlight the importance of phase factors in symmetry operations, noting that these can affect the S-matrix values and transition probabilities.
  • There is mention of the CPT theorem, with some participants asserting that it implies processes have the same probability as their inverse processes when considering particle-antiparticle transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the implications of time reversal symmetry on the S-matrix, with no consensus reached on whether hermiticity is a necessary condition. The discussion remains unresolved with respect to the exact relationships between time reversal, parity, and the properties of the S-matrix.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding assumptions about the Hamiltonian's form and the treatment of spin and momentum under various symmetry operations. The discussion also acknowledges the complexity introduced by phase factors that may affect the interpretation of symmetry operations.

geoduck
Messages
257
Reaction score
2
If the probability for a state α prepared initially to be in a state β at a later time is given by:

[tex]S_{\beta \alpha} S_{\beta \alpha}^*[/tex]

and for a state β prepared intitially to become a state α is: [itex]S_{ \alpha \beta} S_{ \alpha \beta}^*[/itex]

then in order for the two to be equal (by time-reversal symmetry), then doesn't S have to be Hermitian?

[tex]S_{ \alpha \beta}=S_{\beta \alpha}^*[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem is that you haven't done a complete time-reversal. Not only does T exchange initial and final states (by antiunitarity), it also flips all momenta and spin. Time reversal invariance of your theory actually implies

[tex] S_{\beta,\alpha} = S_{T\alpha,T\beta}.[/tex]

This is what you really mean when picturing the reverse process. In addition, this shows that the processes [itex]\alpha \rightarrow \beta[/itex] and [itex]T\alpha \rightarrow T\beta[/itex] don't proceed at the same rate in general, unlike the similar result for parity invariance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
king vitamin said:
The problem is that you haven't done a complete time-reversal. Not only does T exchange initial and final states (by antiunitarity), it also flips all momenta and spin. Time reversal invariance of your theory actually implies

[tex] S_{\beta,\alpha} = S_{T\alpha,T\beta}.[/tex]

I forgot about the momentum flipping (the helicity flips, but not the spin, right?). What if you combine parity with time reversal, PT, to flip back the momentum and helicity? Does a PT-invariant theory then must have

[tex] S_{\beta,\alpha}=S_{\alpha,\beta}[/tex]?

Also, I recall that the rule for antiparticles is to treat the antiparticle like a particle, but swap initial and final states, and make the 4-momentum negative. That is, an incoming positron of 4-momentum p has [itex]\bar{v}(-p)[/itex] and an outgoing one has [itex]v(-p)[/itex]. Is the antiparticle process a time-reversal transformation for the corresponding particle process? Or is the antiparticle process a PT transformation of the corresponding particle process, since although we insert -p into the spinor, the process is really describing a 4-momentum +p, so we need to flip parity to change -p (from time-reversal) to +p?
 
You got it backwards - parity flips the spatial momentum, the helicity, but not the spin. In contrast, time reversal flips the spatial momentum, the spin, but not the helicity. As required, the helicity is the product of the spin and angular momentum. So as you see, PT does reverse spin.

You also need to be careful due to extra phase factors; recall that a symmetry operation only needs to take a state into its symmetric partner modulo a phase factor, and sometimes these phase factors can't be eliminated by a general redefinition. Parity is a really important example of this; a parity operation will generate a factor [itex]\pm1[/itex] for each particle dependent on the species of the particle, and unlike time-reversal cannot be eliminated (I'm a little confused on this point, it seems to be because a parity redefinition can be made using internal symmetry operators). In addition, under time-reversal, a state with total angular momentum j=l+s generates an extra phase [itex](-1)^{j-s}[/itex] (this was implicit in my notation [itex]T\alpha[/itex] above). So although many of these phases cancel out when discussing amplitudes, you can't restrict the values of the S-matrix itself.

We introduce another operator, C, for transforming particles into antiparticles. If C is a symmetry, we get the same case as for P (an arbitrary [itex]\pm1[/itex] for each species of particle). You asked a question specifically about its action on spinors, I would need to spend more time with references to get into the explicit representation of C. However, the celebrated CPT theorem proves that any interaction which is a Lorentz scalar will commute with CPT, so it's always conserved in relativistic field theories.

By the way, all of this info is discussed at great length in the opening chapters of Weinberg's QFT Vol.1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
king vitamin said:
You got it backwards - parity flips the spatial momentum, the helicity, but not the spin. In contrast, time reversal flips the spatial momentum, the spin, but not the helicity. As required, the helicity is the product of the spin and angular momentum. So as you see, PT does reverse spin.

For a particle with spin-0, one without spin, then it would seem then that PT symmetry would imply [itex]\alpha \rightarrow \beta[/itex] has the same probability as [itex]\beta \rightarrow \alpha[/itex]. Time reversal swaps the two states and makes the momentum negative, but parity restores the momentum? Given a Hamiltonian that doesn't involve spin, H=H(X,P)=P^2+V(X), then if V(X) is invariant under parity, that's sufficient to be invariant under PT. Under time reversal: H(X,-P)=H(X,P) and under parity: H(-X,-P)=H(X,P).


So although many of these phases cancel out when discussing amplitudes, you can't restrict the values of the S-matrix itself.

The phases vanish when taking the probability, so it seems okay.

However, the celebrated CPT theorem proves that any interaction which is a Lorentz scalar will commute with CPT, so it's always conserved in relativistic field theories.

What I wanted to argue was that since CPT is a symmetry, CPT=1, where 1 is the identity, and therefore T=PC (ignoring phases). So I wanted to say that time reversal is equivalent to reflection and charge conjugation, or that traveling backwards in time is the same as making all particles antiparticles and mirror-imaging everything. Not sure if this is sound reasoning.
 
geoduck said:
For a particle with spin-0, one without spin, then it would seem then that PT symmetry would imply [itex]\alpha \rightarrow \beta[/itex] has the same probability as [itex]\beta \rightarrow \alpha[/itex]. Time reversal swaps the two states and makes the momentum negative, but parity restores the momentum? Given a Hamiltonian that doesn't involve spin, H=H(X,P)=P^2+V(X), then if V(X) is invariant under parity, that's sufficient to be invariant under PT. Under time reversal: H(X,-P)=H(X,P) and under parity: H(-X,-P)=H(X,P).

Yes, I agree with all of this. (though I assume you mean your Hamiltonian to be a functional of a scalar field).

What I wanted to argue was that since CPT is a symmetry, CPT=1, where 1 is the identity, and therefore T=PC (ignoring phases). So I wanted to say that time reversal is equivalent to reflection and charge conjugation, or that traveling backwards in time is the same as making all particles antiparticles and mirror-imaging everything. Not sure if this is sound reasoning.

Yes, that all sounds right. In general, CPT invariance implies that a process has the same probability as the inverse process with all spins flipped and particles replaced by antiparticles. The other nice thing you can prove using only CPT invariance (with help of the optical theorem, required by unitarity) is that particles have the same decay rate as their antiparticles.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K