Does the “particle exchange” operator have any validity?If wavefunction is just a probability function,...

What do you call a fact that doesn't match the settings?

Does my logo design convey the right feelings for a University Student's Council?

Are there any outlying considerations if I treat donning a shield as an object interaction during the first round of combat?

Slow moving projectiles from a hand-held weapon - how do they reach the target?

page split between longtable caption and table

It took me a lot of time to make this, pls like. (YouTube Comments #1)

Number of FLOP (Floating Point Operations) for exponentiation

Program that converts a number to a letter of the alphabet

Unwarranted claim of higher degree of accuracy in zircon geochronology

How to acknowledge an embarrassing job interview, now that I work directly with the interviewer?

How do we succintly describe a boxing match?

Jumping Numbers

What is better: yes / no radio, or simple checkbox?

Strange Sign on Lab Door

Does the "particle exchange" operator have any validity?

Manipulating a general length function

Getting a UK passport renewed when you have dual nationality and a different name in your second country?

A starship is travelling at 0.9c and collides with a small rock. Will it leave a clean hole through, or will more happen?

Is it a fallacy if someone claims they need an explanation for every word of your argument to the point where they don't understand common terms?

Closed form for these polynomials?

How can I improve my fireworks photography?

Everyone is beautiful

QGIS: use geometry from different layer in symbology expression

Can we use the stored gravitational potential energy of a building to produce power?



Does the “particle exchange” operator have any validity?


If wavefunction is just a probability function, how does an electron interfere with itselfIs it accurate to say “a wavefunction is a function of particle positions or momenta”?In Bohmian mechanics, how does the particle's position affect where a particle is detected?What is meant by the term “single particle state”Does quantum mechanics imply that particles have no trajectories?Why is the phase picked up during identical particle exchange a topological invariant?Are quantum mechanics non-deterministic?Creation and annihilation operators for any operator which has discrete and countable eigenvalues?Do the exchange operator and Hamiltonian commute for non-identical particles?Would every particle in the universe not have some form of measurement occurring at any given time?













2












$begingroup$


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









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    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









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      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 1 hour ago









      Paul YoungPaul Young

      1,049112




      1,049112






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          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









            4












            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$


















              4












              $begingroup$

              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









              $endgroup$
















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                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 1 hour ago









                knzhouknzhou

                44.6k11121215




                44.6k11121215






























                    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

                    Is there a lightweight tool to crop images quickly?Cropping Images using Command Line Tools OnlyHow to crop...

                    Image
                    Does every functor from Set to Set preserve products? Why avoid shared user accounts? What to look for when criticizing poetry? Is a new Boolean field better than a null reference when a value can be meaningfully absent? Why zero tolerance on nudity in space? In Linux what happens if 1000 files in a directory are moved to another location while another 300 files were added to the source directory? Why exactly do action photographers need high fps burst cameras? Can we harness gravitational potential energy? What sets the resolution of an analog resistive sensor? How to make ice magic work from a scientific point of view? ...
                    Read more

                    List of shipwrecks in 1808...

                    Image
                    Lists of shipwrecks by yearMaritime incidents in 1808 Anglo-Russian Warship of the lineBaltiskiHMS  Centaur HMS  Implacable Royal Navy The list of shipwrecks in 1808 includes some ships sunk, wrecked or otherwise lost during 1808. table of contents 1808 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unknown date References January 1 January List of shipwrecks: 1 January 1808 Ship Country Description Barrett   United Kingdom The ship was holed by an anchor and sank at Falmouth, Jamaica. [1] Brisk   United Kingdom The ship sprang a leak and was abandoned by her crew. She was on a voyage from London to Africa. [2] Jenny   United Kingdom The sloop collided with a brig off Great Yarmouth, Norfolk and was abandoned by her crew. She was then driven ashore. Jenny was on a voyage from Boston, Lincolnshire to London. [3] Leighton   United Kingdom The ship was wrecked on the I...
                    Read more

                    Unit packagekit.service is masked Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar...

                    Image
                    Why do C and C++ allow the expression (int) + 4*5? Can I take recommendation from someone I met at a conference? How to obtain original coefficients after performing gradient descent on normalized data? Does Prince Arnaud cause someone holding the Princess to lose? Indexes with the same object_id but different names Compiling and throwing simple dynamic exceptions at runtime for JVM My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer Lights are flickering on and off after accidentally bumping into light switch Why did Israel vote against lifting the American embargo on Cuba? Why are two-digit numbers in Jonathan Swift's ...
                    Read more