Does the “particle exchange” operator have any validity?












7












$begingroup$


In introductory quantum mechanics books the topic of identical particles often introduces a "particle exchange" operator. This operator, when applied to a multi-particle wave-function, exchanges the positions of two identical particles.



However, it seems to me that this is a non-physical thing. Particles can't really "exchange positions" can they? Does such an operator really have validity?






quantum-mechanics







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    7












    $begingroup$


    In introductory quantum mechanics books the topic of identical particles often introduces a "particle exchange" operator. This operator, when applied to a multi-particle wave-function, exchanges the positions of two identical particles.



    However, it seems to me that this is a non-physical thing. Particles can't really "exchange positions" can they? Does such an operator really have validity?






    quantum-mechanics







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      7












      7








      7


      1



      $begingroup$


      In introductory quantum mechanics books the topic of identical particles often introduces a "particle exchange" operator. This operator, when applied to a multi-particle wave-function, exchanges the positions of two identical particles.



      However, it seems to me that this is a non-physical thing. Particles can't really "exchange positions" can they? Does such an operator really have validity?






      quantum-mechanics







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      In introductory quantum mechanics books the topic of identical particles often introduces a "particle exchange" operator. This operator, when applied to a multi-particle wave-function, exchanges the positions of two identical particles.



      However, it seems to me that this is a non-physical thing. Particles can't really "exchange positions" can they? Does such an operator really have validity?






      quantum-mechanics




      quantum-mechanics






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 8 hours ago









      Paul YoungPaul Young

      1,074112




      1,074112






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11












          $begingroup$

          If I'm reading your question right, I think you're having a relatively common issue. Feynman himself had the same issue when confronted with a creation operator for an electron. "How can an electron really be created? It violates the conservation of charge!"



          The point is that not every operator needs to represent a physical realizable time evolution. Quite often, you just want to consider the formal properties of an abstract operator, regardless of whether it has any direct meaning itself. (In fact, at the level of quantum field theory, it certainly doesn't -- the particle exchange operator does nothing whatsoever, because the particles are identical. The simpler formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics doesn't have that built in, which is why it's useful to consider the exchange operator.)



          You've already seen this attitude earlier in quantum mechanics. For example, the position operator $hat{x}$ is not a "physical thing", in the sense that if you have a state $|psi rangle$, $hat{x} |psi rangle$ is not necessarily a sensible physical state. Instead $hat{x}$ is useful because it represents an observable quantity. In quantum mechanics, operators are our basic tools. Some represent observables, some represent physical time evolutions, and some represent neither, and there's nothing wrong with those last ones.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "151"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464019%2fdoes-the-particle-exchange-operator-have-any-validity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            11












            $begingroup$

            If I'm reading your question right, I think you're having a relatively common issue. Feynman himself had the same issue when confronted with a creation operator for an electron. "How can an electron really be created? It violates the conservation of charge!"



            The point is that not every operator needs to represent a physical realizable time evolution. Quite often, you just want to consider the formal properties of an abstract operator, regardless of whether it has any direct meaning itself. (In fact, at the level of quantum field theory, it certainly doesn't -- the particle exchange operator does nothing whatsoever, because the particles are identical. The simpler formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics doesn't have that built in, which is why it's useful to consider the exchange operator.)



            You've already seen this attitude earlier in quantum mechanics. For example, the position operator $hat{x}$ is not a "physical thing", in the sense that if you have a state $|psi rangle$, $hat{x} |psi rangle$ is not necessarily a sensible physical state. Instead $hat{x}$ is useful because it represents an observable quantity. In quantum mechanics, operators are our basic tools. Some represent observables, some represent physical time evolutions, and some represent neither, and there's nothing wrong with those last ones.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              11












              $begingroup$

              If I'm reading your question right, I think you're having a relatively common issue. Feynman himself had the same issue when confronted with a creation operator for an electron. "How can an electron really be created? It violates the conservation of charge!"



              The point is that not every operator needs to represent a physical realizable time evolution. Quite often, you just want to consider the formal properties of an abstract operator, regardless of whether it has any direct meaning itself. (In fact, at the level of quantum field theory, it certainly doesn't -- the particle exchange operator does nothing whatsoever, because the particles are identical. The simpler formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics doesn't have that built in, which is why it's useful to consider the exchange operator.)



              You've already seen this attitude earlier in quantum mechanics. For example, the position operator $hat{x}$ is not a "physical thing", in the sense that if you have a state $|psi rangle$, $hat{x} |psi rangle$ is not necessarily a sensible physical state. Instead $hat{x}$ is useful because it represents an observable quantity. In quantum mechanics, operators are our basic tools. Some represent observables, some represent physical time evolutions, and some represent neither, and there's nothing wrong with those last ones.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                11












                11








                11





                $begingroup$

                If I'm reading your question right, I think you're having a relatively common issue. Feynman himself had the same issue when confronted with a creation operator for an electron. "How can an electron really be created? It violates the conservation of charge!"



                The point is that not every operator needs to represent a physical realizable time evolution. Quite often, you just want to consider the formal properties of an abstract operator, regardless of whether it has any direct meaning itself. (In fact, at the level of quantum field theory, it certainly doesn't -- the particle exchange operator does nothing whatsoever, because the particles are identical. The simpler formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics doesn't have that built in, which is why it's useful to consider the exchange operator.)



                You've already seen this attitude earlier in quantum mechanics. For example, the position operator $hat{x}$ is not a "physical thing", in the sense that if you have a state $|psi rangle$, $hat{x} |psi rangle$ is not necessarily a sensible physical state. Instead $hat{x}$ is useful because it represents an observable quantity. In quantum mechanics, operators are our basic tools. Some represent observables, some represent physical time evolutions, and some represent neither, and there's nothing wrong with those last ones.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                If I'm reading your question right, I think you're having a relatively common issue. Feynman himself had the same issue when confronted with a creation operator for an electron. "How can an electron really be created? It violates the conservation of charge!"



                The point is that not every operator needs to represent a physical realizable time evolution. Quite often, you just want to consider the formal properties of an abstract operator, regardless of whether it has any direct meaning itself. (In fact, at the level of quantum field theory, it certainly doesn't -- the particle exchange operator does nothing whatsoever, because the particles are identical. The simpler formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics doesn't have that built in, which is why it's useful to consider the exchange operator.)



                You've already seen this attitude earlier in quantum mechanics. For example, the position operator $hat{x}$ is not a "physical thing", in the sense that if you have a state $|psi rangle$, $hat{x} |psi rangle$ is not necessarily a sensible physical state. Instead $hat{x}$ is useful because it represents an observable quantity. In quantum mechanics, operators are our basic tools. Some represent observables, some represent physical time evolutions, and some represent neither, and there's nothing wrong with those last ones.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 7 hours ago









                knzhouknzhou

                44.7k11122216




                44.7k11122216






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464019%2fdoes-the-particle-exchange-operator-have-any-validity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

                    Image
                    .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 total noob sorry any help greatly appreciated. I keep getting this "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'." heres my codes code one CREATE TABLE supplier ( supplierID INT PRIMARY KEY, ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), price DECIMAL (5,2), ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); code two CREATE TABLE orders ( orderID INT PRIMARY KEY, customerID INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES customer(customerID), ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), orderDate date, ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); Ive run out of stuff to try other than dumbing it down to uselessness. ...
                    Read more

                    Alcedinidae

                    Image
                    Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout ...
                    Read more

                    Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?

                    Image
                    .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 17 1 Today, I found myself discussing what students should have "under their belts" during a lecture, and I wondered to myself if there was some inappropriate undertone here that I might be unaware of. Question : What is the origin of the phrase "under your belt"? A google search revealed some webpages (e.g. [1]) that assert its origin is related to consumption of food -- once a meal has been eaten, it's under your belt (which is a relief). However, with such websites, I have no way to determine fact from "random guy on the internet making stuff up". etymology idioms ...
                    Read more