Potential Invariant under translation

kthouz
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
When I was learning translational symmetry I saw that for translation invariance, i.e
[T,H]=0
the momentum P needs to be conserved
[P,H]=0
.
This momentum is actually the generator of small translations defined as
T:x→x+ε
.
Now, I was solving some problems and I met one which is interesting. I am given a potential
V(x)=Asin(2πx/ε) (where A is a constant)​
That potential is actually invariant under the translation defined above. In that problem they say that consequently the "momentum is not conserved". Can anybody tell me why?
I tried to understand it by saying that, if I can show that the Hamiltonian is not conserved hence the momentum is not. But it looks that I don't have enough information about H.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In classical and quantum mechanics, we typically write the Hamiltonian as the sum of kinetic and potential energy terms, denoted like this:
<br /> H ~=~ K(p) + V(x)<br />
E.g., in nonrelativistic mechanics, K(p) = p^2/2m.

If a naive quantization is possible by simply promoting the classical momentum p and position x to operators (P and X) satisfying the usual canonical commutation rules, then it's easy to see that:
<br /> [H,P] ~=~ [V(X), P]<br />
which is nonzero in general because X and P don't commute.

(A similar thing happens in the classical case of course, but we must use a Poisson bracket instead of a commutator.)
 
Your translation

kthouz said:
T:x→x+ε

is one specific translation for one specific parameter ε.

There are two definitions of translation symmetry:

1) continuous, i.e. the system is invariant w.r.t.

T:x→x+ε

for all ε (the fact that ε is small is only required to identify the momentum as the generator of translations; in general nothing prevents you from a translation with ε' ≠ ε which is small, too; or from a translation where ε is large)

2) discrete (in a lattice or a crystal), i.e. the system is invariant w.r.t.

T:x→x+nxL

where xL is a lattice vector and n is an integer.

In both cases a) and b) it's not the case that you first fix ε (or n) and then fix the potentials for that specific parameter, but that you have a potential and study translations for arbitrary parameter ε (or n).
 
Thank you very much. I calculated
[P,V(x)]
in x-basis and I found a cosine function. Hence the momentum is not always conserved and hence is conserved at certain values of x.
 
kthouz said:
Thank you very much. I calculated
[P,V(x)]
in x-basis and I found a cosine function. Hence the momentum is not always conserved and hence is conserved at certain values of x.

This conclusion is wrong!

Think about a ball moving in a potential V(x) ~ sin(x); of course its momentum is not conserved (you could say that at certain points it is conserved for an infinitesimal short time, but of course in QM the particle will never be exactly located at these points)

For momentum conservation

[P, H] = 0

is required (as an operator identity). Anything else but zero on the r.h.s. means that momentum is not conserved. Please have a look at classical Poisson brackets and Heisenberg's equation of motion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_bracket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_picture
 
Last edited:
tom.stoer said:
This conclusion is wrong!

Think about a ball moving in a potential V(x) ~ sin(x); of course its momentum is not conserved (you could say that at certain points it is conserved for an infinitesimal short time, but of course in QM the particle will never be exactly located at these points)

For momentum conservation

[P, H] = 0

is required (as an operator identity). Anything else but zero on the r.h.s. means that momentum is not conserved. Please have a look at classical Poisson brackets and Heisenberg's equation of motion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_bracket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_picture
Ok, thanks a lot, now this makes sense
 
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...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top