Graduate Understanding time translations in Ballentine

  • Thread starter Thread starter EE18
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of time translations in nonrelativistic mechanics, specifically within the framework of the Galilean group. It explores the distinction between active and passive transformations, where an active transformation involves moving forward in time while a passive transformation shifts the entire coordinate system backward. The confusion arises from the equation relating the transformed state, which shows a time shift of t-s instead of t+s, leading to questions about the implications for state evolution. The importance of the Hamiltonian in determining state evolution is also highlighted, emphasizing the role of the Schrödinger equation in predicting the system's behavior over time. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the underlying principles of quantum mechanics as presented in Ballentine's text.
EE18
Messages
112
Reaction score
13
I suppose this question ultimately boils down to: when we speak of a time translation (in nonrelativistic mechanics, so that the Galilean group is the apporpiate symmetry group under which the physics of a system must not change) what do we mean? In particular, do we mean that the value we assign to the current moment does not matter (of course) or that if we actually actively translate the system in time, then nothing changes (how can this be true? The state may evolve in time!).

This question is motivated by the following excerpt from Ballentine's quantum text on page 77:

Corresponding to the time displacement 𝑡→𝑡′=𝑡+𝑠, there is a vector space transformation of the form (3.8) [i.e. effected by the unitary operator for time translations which was earlier seen to be ##e^{isH}## in this context],|𝜓(𝑡)⟩→##e^{isH}##|𝜓(𝑡)⟩ =(?) |𝜓(𝑡−𝑠)⟩
where it's the equality marked with (?) which I can't follow and which I think has to do with my lack of understanding of time translations. If I am doing 𝑡→𝑡′=𝑡+𝑠 on the system then shouldn't my system get mapped to |𝜓′⟩=|𝜓(𝑡′)⟩=|𝜓(𝑡+𝑠)⟩? If 𝑠>0 I am ahead in time after the active transformation, no? I think the crux of my misunderstanding is why a ##t-s##rather than ##t+s## appears in the argument of the transformed state.

This is related to my not understanding the end of Saoirse's answer here.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It all boils down to equation (3.8)
$$U(\tau)\psi(x)=\psi(\tau^{-1}x).$$
Notice that transforming "forward" the wavefunctions is the same as leaving the wavefunction intact but transforming "backward" the space-time variable variables.Hence, moving forward in time, ##t \rightarrow t+s##, is given by ##\psi(t) \rightarrow\psi(t-s).##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes LittleSchwinger
EE18 said:
I think the crux of my misunderstanding is why a ##t-s##rather than ##t+s## appears in the argument of the transformed state.
Adding to andresB's answer...

Imagine a classical observer in spacetime who, at time ##t## (as given by his wristwatch) constructs a (Cartesian, say) local coordinate system, i.e., a grid marked out in space and time numbers. To get to the point on the grid where his watch would read ##t+s## he must tardis himself forward in time to where the time coordinate on the grid says "##t+s##". Alternatively, he could grab the whole grid and slide it backwards in time by an amount ##-s##.

The former is called an "active" transformation, the latter is called a "passive" transformation. In general these are usually inverses of each other.

As for complications regarding nontrivial state evolution, that can only happen we have a nontrivial Hamiltonian. We still use the Schrodinger equation (3.38) to compute what ##\Psi(t)## looks like at arbitrary times.
 
  • Like
Likes LittleSchwinger
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K