Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Operators - Parity

  1. Oct 19, 2007 #1
    Let's say we have a symmetric potential, in position representation [tex]V(x)=V(-x)[/tex] and let [tex]P[/tex] be the parity operator.
    Then quite clearly [tex]PV=VP[/tex] but I was told the stronger statement [tex]V=PV[/tex] is not true, but I thought

    [tex]V=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} V\left|x\right\rangle\left\langle x \right| dx[/tex]
    (where I have used completeness and linearity of the integral... though I'm having second thoughts about linearity - can I just move the integral through V?)
    [tex]V=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} V(x)\left|x\right\rangle\left\langle x \right| dx[/tex]
    [tex]V=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} V(-x)\left|x\right\rangle\left\langle x \right| dx[/tex]
    [tex]V=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} (PV(x))\left|x\right\rangle\left\langle x \right| dx[/tex]
    [tex]V=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} P(V(x)\left|x\right\rangle)\left\langle x \right| dx[/tex]
    [tex]V=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} P(V\left|x\right\rangle)\left\langle x \right| dx[/tex]
    [tex]V=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} (PV)\left|x\right\rangle\left\langle x \right| dx[/tex]

    If V is not the same as PV, why not?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 19, 2007 #2
    If P acts like PV(x)=V(-x), then obviously PV=V for symmetric potentials, and your calculation was unnecessarily complicated. But I don't know how precisely your P is defined. Could it be, that it was defined so that it works like this PV(x)P^-1 = V(-x)?

    hmh.. in fact this comes down to the question about what you want V to be. If you think that it is operator, that maps Psi into V*Psi, then PV=VP seems to be the only way.

    In position representation V is an operator that maps the Psi like this

    \Psi(x) \mapsto V(x)\Psi(x)

    Now you want to know what PV is. P maps the state V*Psi like this

    V(x)\Psi(x)\mapsto V(-x)\Psi(-x)

    so, in other words

    PV\Psi(x) = V(-x)\Psi(-x) = V(-x)P P^{-1}\Psi(-x) = V(-x)P\Psi(x)

    \implies PV(x)=V(-x)P \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad PV(x)P^{-1}=V(-x)

    Here the notation is bad, because it would be better to not have the (x) after the V, but its easier to write the operator V(-x) with this notation.

    If you wanted to have PV=V, for symmetric potentials, this would imply


    which is wrong, because for symmetric potentials we have

    Last edited: Oct 19, 2007
  4. Oct 19, 2007 #3
    Yeah, I realise my calculation was overly complicated, but I felt like I was trying to justify the obvious and didn't know how to do it.
    That actually makes a lot of sense - I was thinking completely wrong about how the operators work (dropping the vector it operates on). It makes sense to me now: if you trasform a state psi by [tex]\psi\rightarrow P\psi[/tex], the states must transform as [tex]A \rightarrow P^{-1}AP[/tex] for consistency (which is the same as your expression for parity since the parity transformation is its own inverse)
    Thanks for clearing it up.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook