1

There is a statement in quantum mechanics that for every physical quantity, there exists a Hermitian operator. The converse is also true. So the question is, what physical quantity is related to the parity operator $\hat{P}:$ $\hat{P}\Psi(x)=\Psi(-x)$? It must have a physical quantity, since it's a Hermitian operator.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751

1 Answers1

1

Yes, parity is a hermitean and unitary operator which does have a (somewhat recondite and marginal) physical interpretation disjoint from its function: It is also an evolution operator of the quantum oscillator for half of its cycle.

I'll be skipping carets of operators to uncluttered formulas and working in optimized natural units ($\hbar=1$, $m=1$, $\omega=1$, to get the drift of formulas friendlier to follow; you know how to repeat all this reinserting the units of your liking).

$$ P x P= -x , \qquad PpP= -p,\\ P=P^{-1}=P^\dagger=\int\!\! dx ~~|\!-\!x\rangle \langle x|, \\ P^2=I. $$

Most importantly, a parity transformation preserves Heisenberg’s/Born's commutation relation, $[x,p]=i$, so it is a quantum canonical transformation.

As you must know, a quantum oscillator Hamiltonian uniformly rotates the operators x and p rigidly in phase space, Condon's (1937) celebrated fractional Fourier transform as a canonical transformation, $$ x\mapsto e^{-iHt} x e^{iHt}, ~~~ p\mapsto e^{-iHt} p e^{iHt}, \\ H= {p^2+ x^2 \over 2}-{1\over 2}. $$ I have shifted away the zero-point energy, since its effect commutes with everything and hence washes out with the inverses of the evolution operators. What's left is the number operator with the standard integer eigenvalues.

The cycle of this quantum phase-space rotation, then, is $t=2\pi$, $e^{i2\pi H}=I$; so the half cycle, $\pi$, just amounts to $$ x\mapsto -x, \qquad p\mapsto -p , ~~~\leadsto \\ \bbox[yellow,5px]{ P= e^{\frac{-i\pi}{2}(p^2+x^2)+{i\pi\over 2}}=P^\dagger }, $$ satisfying the properties posited ($P P^\dagger=I$, etc), as you must check.

  • This is a completely general operator canonical transformation, for all systems, and is not predicated on focussing on a quantum oscillator system. It is your prerogative to interpret the exponent as an oscillator hamiltonian or not, for ease of visualization. Again, the specific dynamics of the system specified by its own hamiltonian should not be conflated with the formal action of the parity operator, as you might appreciate from QFT.

This is not my favorite operatorial representation of P,$^\natural$ but it is the one closest to a "physical picture", namely a $t=\pi$ evolution of the quantum oscillator for half its cycle.


$^\natural$ My own favorite representation, much easier to check on eigenstates of x or p, is $$P = \int\!\! dx ~~|\!-\!x\rangle \langle x|=\int\!\! da db ~~ e^{i(a\hat p + b\hat x)}/4\pi .$$

Cosmas Zachos
  • 62,595
  • This is very specific, applying only to the case of a single quantum harmonic oscillator, which is not a context where I think the parity operator is particularly useful. – ComptonScattering Mar 04 '22 at 17:07
  • Formally, it is completely abstract and general. The OP asked for some "physical" interpretation, and I pointed out that, yes, for a very special operator, the oscillator Hamiltonian, this does have some such interpretation. I cannot clarify this in my answer further. The oscillator, creation and annihilation operators, are used in all kinds of contexts, not involving oscillators visibly. I hope you appreciate that Condon's stuff is *completely general* ! – Cosmas Zachos Mar 04 '22 at 17:12
  • I stand by my original comment. Appealing that the use of the CCR algebra implies generality is really very weak. – ComptonScattering Mar 07 '22 at 02:31
  • Either you are misunderstanding my evident point, or I yours. The formulas are correct, general, and incontrovertible. Recognizing the operator as the oscillator propagator may be frivolous, but satisfactory to some. – Cosmas Zachos Mar 07 '22 at 03:09
  • The formulas are correct, and show that for a system with a QHO hamiltonian, that the parity operator is equal to the time evolution operator over a half period. Despite your claims, nothing here appears "general" beyond the scope of the QHO. Why this point has aggravated you is really quite unclear to me. – ComptonScattering Mar 07 '22 at 22:29
  • No. You are missing the point. Canonically, this is the parity operator for any and all 1-d systems, trivially generalizable to n dimensional ones. It happens that rotations in phase space are generated by the QHO hamiltonian, which is what is pointed out. But a system with any hamiltonian, or no hamiltonian, or a blob, parity-transforms with these operators. By reminding the reader that this operator does what the QHO evolution operator does, I provide the tenuous "physical" interpretation asked. I do not need it to understand the action of the parity operator, but maybe the OP would. – Cosmas Zachos Mar 07 '22 at 22:37
  • Do you understand at all that, never having mentioned the QHO here, or time, all formulas hold by dint of the Hadamard lemma? Reassure yourself that the abstract operators p and x parity transform this way. Only then start thinking about the QHO. The point is a generic canonical (duality) transformation. – Cosmas Zachos Mar 07 '22 at 23:51
  • I would be embarrassed if I were you. – ComptonScattering Mar 08 '22 at 01:31
  • Tell me more. Is the logic thread clear now? – Cosmas Zachos Mar 08 '22 at 03:21
  • In a Hilbert space generated by the CCR algebra, any unitary can be written in terms of an exponentiated combination of creation/annihilation operators. This is a tautological statement. What you have done is provided an explicit calculation to this effect. In detail, you gave a form for $i \log P$, which it totally useless and offers no physical insight, except in one case the QHO---where $i \log P$ is the Hamiltonian. This is the only case where this can be physically implemented, and thus the only case where your calculation could be reasonably regarded as a "physical interpretation" – ComptonScattering Mar 08 '22 at 03:59
  • Indeed, for all systems, a double Fourier transform is generated by the number operator. Welcome to QFT. This is a physical implementation, and I don’t see why you expect otherwise. I am curious about your alternative vision. – Cosmas Zachos Mar 08 '22 at 08:42
  • Yes, but hamiltonian is the generator of dynamics, not the number operator. And please stop the tu quoque. – ComptonScattering Mar 08 '22 at 17:01
  • 1
    Tu quoque after curt invitations to embarassment??? My point has been firmly that dynamics is irrelevant to the significance of parity. And that the number operator is what counts, which happens to be the oscillator hamiltonian, but need not be the system's hamiltonian. Tertium non datur. – Cosmas Zachos Mar 08 '22 at 17:25