Figuring symmetries of a differential operator from its eigenfunctions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on identifying symmetries associated with differential operators and their eigenfunctions. The derivative operator exhibits translational invariance, while the theta operator shows scaling invariance, with each having specific eigenfunctions. The user seeks to determine the symmetries linked to various operators based on their eigenfunctions, noting that physical symmetries correlate with conservation laws. They inquire about deriving finite transformations from infinitesimal ones for operators beyond the basic examples provided. Understanding these relationships could reveal conserved quantities in systems governed by such differential operators.
JPaquim
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
So, I understand that the derivative operator, D=\frac{d}{dx} has translational invariance, that is: x \rightarrow x - x_0, and its eigenfunctions are e^{\lambda t}. Analogously, the theta operator \theta=x\frac{d}{dx} is invariant under scalings, that is x \rightarrow \alpha x, and its eigenfunctions are x^\lambda. Taking logarithms and exponentials, I have constructed a sequence of operators and their respective eigenfunctions, all with the property that \{L(\frac{d}{dx})\}f^\lambda(x)=\lambda f^\lambda(x). I've taken a picture and attached it to this post.

My guess is that associated with every single one of these operators is some symmetry, some sort of coordinate transformation x \rightarrow f(x) under which the operator is invariant. For the x\log x \frac{d}{dx} operator, its invariant under x \rightarrow x^k, by inspection. How can I figure out what sort of symmetry a given operator has, given its eigenfunctions?

Physically, symmetries are associated with conservation laws. For a system whose differential equations are governed by this sort of differential operators, what sort of conserved quantities should I expect?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0596.jpg
    IMG_0596.jpg
    16.5 KB · Views: 441
Mathematics news on Phys.org
##\frac{d}{dx}## is associated with translational symmetry. An infinitesimal translation is produced by acting on a function with the operator ##1 + \epsilon \frac{d}{dx}##, with ##\epsilon## infinitesimal.

##x \frac{d}{dx}## is associated with scale invariance. An infinitesimal rescaling is produced by acting on a function with the operator ##1 + \epsilon x \frac{d}{dx}##, with ##\epsilon## infinitesimal.

Presumably your other operators ##O## can be associated with symmetry transformations with an infinitesimal transformation being implemented by ##1 + \epsilon O##?
 
Ok, I agree with you. How can I figure out the "finite" version of the transformation from its infinitesimal counterpart?
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top