Prove T Not Conserved When [H,T] = 0

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter benfrombelow
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conservation of the time-reversal operator T in the context of quantum mechanics, specifically when the commutation relation [H,T] = 0 is given. Participants explore the implications of this relation for the conservation of T, addressing theoretical concepts and calculations related to antiunitary operators.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that proving T is not conserved when [H,T] = 0 is necessary for a homework assignment, suggesting it relates to properties of antiunitary operators.
  • Another participant questions the meaning of "conserved" in the context of operators, particularly anti-linear ones.
  • A different participant explains that conservation typically means the operator is constant in the Heisenberg picture, which does not hold for anti-linear operators.
  • One participant proposes examining the expectation value of T in an arbitrary state, leading to a conclusion that it is not constant, although they express dissatisfaction with this reasoning.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the calculations presented, specifically how one expression transitions to another involving the time evolution operator.
  • A participant elaborates that the anti-linearity of T leads to specific relationships with the Hamiltonian H, affecting the calculations involving T and the time evolution operator.
  • One participant critiques the use of Dirac's formalism for T, noting that T is not self-adjoint, which complicates the conclusions drawn from the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the commutation relation [H,T] = 0 for the conservation of T, with no consensus reached on the conclusions drawn from the calculations or the definitions of conservation in this context.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the definitions of conservation for anti-linear operators and the implications of the calculations presented, particularly concerning the use of Dirac's formalism.

benfrombelow
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
If [H,T] = 0 (where H is the Hamiltonian and T is the (antiunitary) time-reversal operator) prove that T is NOT conserved

This is for a homework assignment due is less than 12 hours...

I'm guessing it has to with the property of antiunitary operators: T|a> = |a'> then <a|b> = <a'|b'>* but it's late and I'm lazy
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What does it mean that an operator is conserved ?

Daniel.
 
Usually, it means that the operator is constant, in the Heisenberg picture, which means that [H,A]=0 but that isn't true when A is anti-linear
 
And what does "conserved" mean for an antilinear operator ?

If you don't know that, you can't solve it.

Daniel.
 
The best I can come up with is to look at the expectation value of T in an arbitrary state: <Psi(t)|T|Psi(t)> = <Psi(0)|(exp(iHt/h))T(exp(-iHt/h))|Psi(0)> = <Psi(0)|(exp(2*iHt/h))T|Psi(0)> = <Psi(-2t)|T|Psi(0)> = <Psi(0)|T|Psi(2t)>

which clearly isn't constant, but it also isn't very satisfying...
 
I don't seem to get the line of thought in your calculations. Could you care to explain how did you get from

[tex]\langle \Psi(0)|\mbox{(exp(iHt/h))}T\mbox{(exp(-iHt/h))}|\Psi(0)\rangle[/tex]

to

[tex]\langle \Psi(0)|\mbox{(exp(2*iHt/h))}T|\Psi(0) \rangle[/tex]

Daniel.
 
Well, basically, since T is antilinear, TiH = -iTH. But T commutes with H, so TiH = -iHT.

edit: To elaborate, because TiH = -iHT, it follows that T(exp(-iHt/h)) = (exp(iHt/h))T since the exponential is a series in powers of H. When moving T to the right of H, the coefficient of each term in the series must be replaced with its complex conjugate
 
Last edited:
Yes, i can see now. One thing to notice is the improper use of Dirac's bra-ket formalism for T, since this operator is not self adjoint.
Thus the last equality does not follow. You managed to find (neglecting the last equality) that

[tex]\langle \psi (t), \psi(t) \rangle \neq \langle \psi (0), \psi (0) \rangle[/tex]

Daniel.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K