The meaning of symmetries is studied in some detail, and a study is performed of transformations which preserve the description, of transformations of frames and the corresponding quantum symmetries. The second part of the chapter outlines Galilei transformations, time translations, spatial reflection and time reversal Meaning of symmetries Symmetries and constants of motion have already appeared here and there in this book, most notably in Appendix 3.A. Recall that, therein, we have defined symmetries as those transformations that generate new solutions out of known solutions; more generally, that permute solutions among themselves. Constants of motion are functions on the carrier space which, when restricted to solutions, acquire a constant value depending on the solution considered. This point of view may be viewed as a dynamical point of view, i.e. depending on the specific system under consideration. There is, however, another meaning of symmetry, which deals with the symmetry of the description that ensures the covariance of the equations of motion, e.g. transformations that map equations of motion in Hamiltonian form into other equations still in Hamiltonian form, or transformations that map second-order differential equations into second-order ones, i.e. equations admitting a Lagrangian description into new ones also admitting a Lagrangian description. Transformations of the dynamical type emerge out of the previous ones when we further require that the Hamiltonian is preserved or the Lagrangian is preserved up to a total time derivative.
The meaning of symmetries is studied in some detail, and a study is performed of transformations which preserve the description, of transformations of frames and the corresponding quantum symmetries. The second part of the chapter outlines Galilei transformations, time translations, spatial reflection and time reversal Meaning of symmetries Symmetries and constants of motion have already appeared here and there in this book, most notably in Appendix 3.A. Recall that, therein, we have defined symmetries as those transformations that generate new solutions out of known solutions; more generally, that permute solutions among themselves. Constants of motion are functions on the carrier space which, when restricted to solutions, acquire a constant value depending on the solution considered. This point of view may be viewed as a dynamical point of view, i.e. depending on the specific system under consideration. There is, however, another meaning of symmetry, which deals with the symmetry of the description that ensures the covariance of the equations of motion, e.g. transformations that map equations of motion in Hamiltonian form into other equations still in Hamiltonian form, or transformations that map second-order differential equations into second-order ones, i.e. equations admitting a Lagrangian description into new ones also admitting a Lagrangian description. Transformations of the dynamical type emerge out of the previous ones when we further require that the Hamiltonian is preserved or the Lagrangian is preserved up to a total time derivative.
The structures are physical systems and/or their mathematical descriptions consisting of elements such as particles, fields, observables, operators etc and of relations between these elements: the equations of motion and the rules of quantum mechanics. Examples of symmetries are reflections, permutations of particles, time reversal. The physical system has a symmetry group means, then, that there is a group of transformations leaving the equations of motion and the rules of quantum mechanics invariant. The discrete symmetries lead to conservation laws frequently expressible in terms of quantum numbers, but sometimes requiring a more elaborate description. The observables corresponding to the super-selection quantum numbers can be measured without disturbing any other measurement; their values are always sharp. The chapter shows that the invariant subspace may be labelled by continuous quantum numbers (for instance momentum) when the direct sum becomes a direct integral.
The spatially-temporal structure which we are going to introduce is a distinctive feature in the description of mechanical objects. In classical mechanics the motion of point masses is described in a frame of reference which consists of a spatial Cartesian coordinate system and a clock. The distinguished class is formed by the so called inertial frames which are characterized by the property that a free point mass performs uniform rectilinear motion with respect to such a frame. It follows that the coordinates (ξ, τ) and (ξ′, τ′) of a point mass in any two inertial frames of reference are related by the Galilei transformation 3.1.1 ξ′=Rξ+x+vτ,τ′+τ+t, where R is an orthogonal matrix (rotation) which describes the orientation of the new spatial axes with respect to the old ones, x is the vector of the spatial shift of the origin, ν is the relative velocity, and τ is the time shift showing the difference between the readings of the two clocks.
Time is used in non-relativistic quantum theory as a classical concept. On the one hand, time is the parameter entering Schrödinger's equation and measured by an external laboratory clock. But it could be considered that time also plays the role of an observable when a given event occurs (e.g., when a particle crosses through a potential barrier), and one would expect that like every observable, it should be represented in the theory by an operator whose properties are predictors of the outcome of time measurements made on physical systems. Several time operators have been proposed in different publications, but still, there is not a widely accepted consensus. That subject, among others concerned with time in quantum mechanics, is analyzed in the present chapter, where we focus on the analysis of time-reversal symmetry in non-relativistic quantum systems. The search for symmetries in Physics helps to study the structure of theories. Briefly speaking, a symmetry is a transformation that does not change the structure of the theory. We start with the analysis of Schrödinger’s Equation verifying that for obtaining a time-symmetric description of the dynamics of a particle, the operation of time-reversal must include conjugation represented by the action of an antiunitary operator acting over a wave function. In particular, we analyze quantum systems whose evolution is determined by a set of external parameters varying cyclically, discussing how even though these parameters return to their initial values, the state of the system acquires a geometric phase, which depends on the path followed by the external parameters in the parameter space and which in general can be associated with the lack of the time-reversal symmetry of the system.
In Part 1, we argued that P(x)dx=dx/L (where L is an arbitrary length) applies to a particle at rest. If one views such a particle from a frame moving at constant -v, it is moving. We argued that in such a case, the relevant probability is not simply linked to the position x, but also to the momentum p at x because this delivers an impulse hit. In particular, probability is presumably to be used in a physical problem with interactions and probability and a dynamical particle requires a dynamical probability describing both x,t and E,p. This led to exp(-iEt+px) which actually predicts intervals in space hbar/p and time hbar/E. In other words, a probabilistic view point leads to these results. Here, we ask the question: What if one simply wishes to use deterministic physics to describe a moving particle? After all, Newtonian mechanics is deterministic and one does not really need to focus on P(x)=1/L or its modification for a moving particle. In such a case, a particle moving with constant v (starting at x=0, t=0) is described by x/t=v both in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. There is no uncertainty in x and t here which begs the question: Why does it appear in the probabilistic formalism of Part 1? In particular, exp(-iEt+ipx) derived in Part 1 implies physical regions: dx = hbar/p and dt=hbar/E and these seem to be absent in x/t=v and this is a problem. We suggest that a probabilistic approach is buried in the Lagrangian formalism which leads to the result d/dt v = 0, i.e describes the particle’s motion in space. This motion is actually x/t=v, but this equation only presents a subset of the description of a particle that is moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic Lagrangian/Action approach. We have already pointed this out in (1). We briefly explain it again here, but the real question is why does one need to consider the Lagrangian in order to describe x/t=v? In other words, the probabilistic approach associated with v=x/t only emerges in the Lagrangian formalism using a relativistic action Lt = -Et+px, with x/t=v. Ignoring the action and Lagrangian leads to an absence of hbar/p and hbar/E and one is only concerned with x/t=v. We note that the Lagrangian is primarily linked to the result: p = dL/dv partial and so argue that one is not simply interested in motion (x/t=v), but also in interaction because p is associated with an impulse hit. Thus, the Lagrangian approach is more than simply a mechanism which describes x,t motion, it is associated with p and E (through Hamiltonian = E = pv-L.) Using the Lagrangian approach suggests that it does not suffice to consider x and t by themselves when p and E are present. One must consider all four variables x,t,E,p which is the same point made in Part 1. The physics of the problem dictates that it is not enough to simply think in terms of x,t,v. The Lagrangian approach, which is constructed to ultimately yield x/t=v, when written in terms of E, p, i.e. Lt = -Et+px demonstrates uncertainty in x, hbar/p and t, hbar/E as shown in (1). This uncertainty must then be written in terms of a probability which is Lorentz invariant and leads to exp(-iEt+ipx). The point is that one would not even consider a probability if one did not consider E,p and x,t together as a complete treatment of a moving particle. In other words, x/t=v is an incomplete description of the state of a particle moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic framework.. At first this might seem surprising, but it is well known that energy and p are linked to interactions. In special relativity, one does not consider x,t,v alone and then compute p and E from these, but considers four vectors and Lorentz invariant equations. It is possible to create a Lorentz invariant equation involving all four state variables x,t,E,p and it turns out that this is the relativistic Lagrangian which describes motion, so this approach is more general than simply stating x/t=v. Thus, delta x = hbar/p and delta t= hbar/E appear in both the probabilistic approach of Part 1 and the deterministic one of the Lagrangian used here.
A symmetry is an equivalence of different physical situations, and is therefore strictly associated with the concept of invariance . One of the main aims of physics is the search in nature for symmetries and, therefore, for observables that are invariant under certain classes of transformation. In this context, it becomes particularly interesting to look for the conditions under which a certain symmetry is eventually broken. We have already discussed some symmetries of quantum mechanics: time translations (Ch. 3), space translations (Ch. 2) and rotations (Ch. 6). Another example of invariance is represented by the indistinguishability of identical particles, which we discussed in the previous chapter. Symmetries are induced by physical transformations that generate some invariant properties (see Sec. 8.1). In Sec. 8.2, the continuous transformations induced by rotations and space translations are analyzed, whereas in Sec. 8.3, space reflection and time reversal ( discrete symmetries) are discussed. As we shall see in the next chapter, time reversibility is lost in the measurement process. The rigorous mathematical framework of a theory of transformations and of their invariance is called group theory (the subject of Sec. 8.4). Quantum transformations and symmetries Active and passive transformations We have seen that time evolution may be represented either in the Schrödinger picture (state vectors evolve and observables are kept constant) or in the Heisenberg picture (states vectors remain constant and observables evolve) (see Subsec. 3.6.1 and Sec. 5.3).
Components of a field function are functions of coordinates and time and satisfy some definite differential equations, which are called field equations. Field equations can be given a very general variational or Lagrangian form, if one accepts, that a field as the dynamic system must be characterized by a definite Lagrangian function. For a mechanical system this function is written down as the sum over all the material points of the system. For a continuous system like a wave field, Lagrangian function is expressed by the space integral from Lagrangian function density: L(t) = ∫ Ld3x. (4.1) However, the variational principle deals not with the Lagrangian function but with an action S obtained from it by means of integration over x0 = ct S = c ∫ L(t)dt. (4.2) Therefore, noncovariant expression (4.1) in Lagrangian formalism is in fact intermediate and it is sufficient to consider the Lagrangian function density L, which depends on the four space-time coordinates x in an implicit way. Hereinafter, we shall simply call L by the Lagrangian. Analogously, the Hamiltonian function density H will be named the Hamiltonian. The Lagrangian depends on components of a field wavefunction ψk and on their first derivatives with respect to the space-time coordinates ∂ψk/∂x ν . In so doing we assign the meaning of generalized field coordinates to ψk, and the meaning of generalized field velocities to ∂ψk/∂x ν . The demand of lacking derivatives with respect to field functions above the first order in the Lagrangian is caused by the following reason. Dynamics of all known quantum fields is described either by equations of the first or the second order. On the one hand, these equations follow from the principle of a least action: δS = 0, (4.3) and under action variation the order of derivatives, entering L, is raised by one. The Lagrangian must be a relativistically covariant quantity, namely, a relativistic scalar L′(x′) = L(x). Thanks to the invariance under the space-time translations, we conclude that the Lagrangian must not manifestly contain any space-time coordinates x. Since dynamical observables (four-dimensional vector of the energy-momentum, the moment of momentum tensor, and so on) are real quantities, then the Lagrangian must be also a real quantity. We shall also impose the locality condition on the Lagrangian, that is, we assume that the Lagrangian depends only on the state of fields in the infinitely small vicinity of the point Particles, Fields, and Quantum x. So: L(x) = L(ψk, ∂ψk ∂xν ) = L (ψk(x), ψk;ν (x)) . General variation of an action, related with varying both field wave functions and of integration domain boundaries, is equal to: δS = δ ∫ L(x)dx = ∫ L(x′)dx′ − ∫ L(x)dx, (4.4) where dx = dx0dr. For L′(x′) we have the expression: L′(x′) = L (ψ′k(x′), ψ′k;ν(x′)) = L(x) + δL(x) = L(x) + δL(x) + dLdxλ δxλ, (4.5) In Eq. (4.5) we denote a form variation of corresponding quantities by the symbol δ. This way δL(x) represents varying the Lagrangian only on the account of the variation of field functions and field function derivatives: δL(x) = ∂L ∂ψk δψk + ∂L ∂ψk;ν δψk;ν , (4.6) and δψk(x) does a variation of a field function form: δψk(x) = ψ ′ k(x) − ψk(x).