Parity operator and change of variable question

andresordonez
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Hi, while reading the section about the parity operator from the QM book by Cohen-Tannoudji (complement F II, page 192), I found this:

"
Consider an arbitrary vector |\psi\rangle of \mathcal{E}_\vec{r}:

|\psi\rangle = \int d^3 r \psi(\vec{r})|\vec{r} \rangle

If the variable change \vec{r'}=-\vec{r} is performed, |\psi \rangle can be written:

|\psi \rangle = \int d^3 r' \psi (-\vec{r'}) |-\vec{r'} \rangle
"

But d^3 r = dx dy dz and after the variable change I get d^3 r' = dx' dy' dz' = - dx dy dz, so I don't understand what happened to that minus sign. It should be:

|\psi \rangle = -\int d^3 r' \psi (-\vec{r'}) |-\vec{r'} \rangle

right??

Someone told me it had to do something with the meaning of the differential volume, but I'm not sure about that.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The limits on the integral also got swapped. When you change them back around, there's another three factors of -1.
 
Right. Thanks schieghoven!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Back
Top