[Q]Conserative theorem and parity

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter good_phy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parity Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and interpretation of the displacement operator in quantum mechanics, particularly as presented in Liboff's textbook. Participants explore the implications of this operator in the context of translations in a physical system and the associated mathematical formulations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions Liboff's definition of the displacement operator, suggesting that it should involve a displacement of the function in the opposite direction.
  • Another participant explains that the momentum operator is the generator of translations and provides a mathematical derivation to support the definition of the displacement operator.
  • A third participant acknowledges the previous calculations but seeks clarification on the interpretation of the displacement operator's effect on the function.
  • A later reply offers two perspectives on translations: one where the system is stationary and the coordinate system shifts, and another where the coordinate system is stationary and the system moves, affirming the correctness of the initial interpretation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the displacement operator's effect on the function and the physical system. While there is some agreement on the mathematical formulation, the conceptual understanding remains contested.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of the displacement operator without resolving the underlying assumptions about the direction of translations and the nature of the physical system versus the coordinate system.

good_phy
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I encountered three conserative theorem in textbook

One of conserative theorem is involving my question.


Liboff defined displacement operator as [itex]\hat{D}(\varsigma) = e^(\frac{i\varsigma\hat{p}_{x}}{\hbar}f(x) = f(x + \varsigma )[/itex] but is it right?

If system is displaced from x to [itex]x + \varsigma[/itex], function f should be displaced

such as [itex]f(x - \varsigma)[/itex], it is function displacement from x to [itex]x + \varsigma[/itex]

Why liboff defined displacement operator in that way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You will notice that p is the momentum operator, and I hope you know this - (linear) momentum is the GENERATOR of translations.

More than Liboff define the displacement operator as this, have you found any other suggestion?

You can check this theorem by writing the momentum operator as the derivative operator, and using exponential of operator and finally taylor-expand this:

[tex]\exp (i\zeta (-i\hbar\frac{d}{dx})/\hbar)f(x) \approx (1+\zeta \frac{d}{dx})f(x) = f(x) + \zeta f'(x) \approx f(x+\zeta)[/tex] (becomes more exact if keeping higher orders)
 
I agree your calculation it is very insparational.

Buy how could you explane my question? [itex]f(x + \varsigma )[/itex] is translating f to left by [itex]\varsigma[/itex].

I interprete [itex]\hat{D}(\varsigma)[/itex] is translating physics system to right by[itex]\varsigma[/itex]

Is my interpretation wrong?
 
now this is not so stringent as my first post.

One can look at translations in two ways,

i) system is stationary and coordinate system is shifted.

ii) coordinate system is stationary and system is moved.

The operator moves the system from point x to point x + \zeta. So your interpretation is correct.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
971
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
644
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K