I Parity Selection Rules: I'm Confused

ergospherical
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
1,384
I'm confused by the discussion in section §30 (Parity of a state), page 98 of Landau's QM. The functions ##\psi_u## and ##\psi_g## are odd an even states respectively. If ##f## is a true scalar, then it should remain unchanged by inversion of the co-ordinates. Writing ##q' = -q##, then its matrix element at position ##(u,g)## is\begin{align*}
f_{ug} = \int \psi_u^*(q) \hat{f}(q) \psi_g(q) dq =-\int [-\psi_u^*(q')] \hat{f}(q') \psi_g(q') dq' = \int \psi_u^*(q') \hat{f}(q') \psi_g(q') dq'
\end{align*}however it is written in the text that ##f_{ug} = -f_{ug}##. What did I mis-understand?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is ##q##? What are the limits of all those integrals?
 
  • Like
Likes ergospherical
Gaussian97 said:
What is ##q##? What are the limits of all those integrals?
Oh yes, thanks, there should be an extra minus sign due to inverting the limits of the third integral.
 
ergospherical said:
I'm confused by the discussion in section §30 (Parity of a state), page 98 of Landau's QM. The functions ##\psi_u## and ##\psi_g## are odd an even states respectively. If ##f## is a true scalar, then it should remain unchanged by inversion of the co-ordinates. Writing ##q' = -q##, then its matrix element at position ##(u,g)## is\begin{align*}
f_{ug} = \int \psi_u^*(q) \hat{f}(q) \psi_g(q) dq =-\int [-\psi_u^*(q')] \hat{f}(q') \psi_g(q') dq' = \int \psi_u^*(q') \hat{f}(q') \psi_g(q') dq'
\end{align*}however it is written in the text that ##f_{ug} = -f_{ug}##. What did I mis-understand?
Where does the additional ##-## sign after the 2nd equality sign come from? This should be absent since ##f(q)=f(-q)## by assumption, if I understand right what you mean by "true scalar", i.e., a scalar under rotations AND parity.
 
ergospherical said:
Oh yes, thanks, there should be an extra minus sign due to inverting the limits of the third integral.
No, why? You have
$$\mathrm{d}^3 q' =\left | \mathrm{det} \frac{\partial(q')}{\partial q} \right| \mathrm{d}^3 q = |-1| \mathrm{d}^3 q=\mathrm{d}^3 q.$$
 
I have taken ##dq’ = -dq##, but in changing variables must also reverse the limits of the integral
\begin{align*}
f_{ug} = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi_u^*(q) \hat{f}(q) \psi_g(q) dq &=-\int_{\infty}^{-\infty} [-\psi_u^*(q')] \hat{f}(q') \psi_g(q') dq' \\
&= \int_{\infty}^{-\infty} \psi_u^*(q') \hat{f}(q') \psi_g(q') dq' \\
&= -f_{ug}
\end{align*}
 
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...
Back
Top