A Understanding time translations in Ballentine

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter EE18
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
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 not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top