Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In field theory one can define a time reversal operator T such that $T^{-1} \phi (x) T = \phi (\mathcal T x)$. It is then proved that T must be antiunitary: $T^{-1} i T = -i$.

How is this equation to be understood? If $i$ is just the unit complex number, why don't we have $T^{-1} i T = i T^{-1} T$ which is just the identity times $i$?

share|cite|improve this question
$T$ is an antilinear (or conjugate-linear) map, cf. – Qmechanic Oct 25 '11 at 21:28
One can think of $i$ as a multiplication operator that commutes with complex linear operators but anticommutes with complex anti-linear operators. Hence, $Ti+iT=0$. One can think of $i$ as a 2-by-2 matrix, if one wants to be very concrete. – Peter Morgan Oct 25 '11 at 22:05
Hey, Unitarians are awesome! At least, all the other operators think so, which is why they don't talk to $T$ anymore ;-) I fixed the question to read "antiunitary". – David Z Oct 26 '11 at 1:27
Thanks for the correction, that did sound odd ;) – Whelp Oct 26 '11 at 8:54
up vote 2 down vote accepted

If I correctly understood your misunderstanding, the answer is: operator is not always a matrix. Technically, action of time inversion operator contains complex conjugation. E.g., in spin up/spin down basis it is written as $-i\sigma_y\mathcal{K}$, where $\mathcal{K}$ is complex conjugation.

share|cite|improve this answer
I think that has been the source of my misunderstanding. I have considered T to be a matrix commutating with $i$. But it seems it is a more generic kind of operator. – Whelp Oct 26 '11 at 8:59

As Qmechanic noted, $T$ is antilinear (this is part of the definition of being antiunitary). Of course, $T^{-1}$ must be antilinear as well because $T$ is. Thus, for any vector in this Hilbert space $v$, $T^{-1}(iv)=-iT^{-1}(v)$. The $i$ pops out as a $-i$. Applying this to your equation, we easily have that $$ T^{-1}iT=-iT^{-1}T=-i. $$

share|cite|improve this answer

I think that just wrong (the wikipedia thing)

  1. $i \in \mathbb C$ so how can an operator act on a scalar?
  2. Even if it was right, one knows that $T = T^\dagger = T^{-1} = -T^*$. So take what you read

$$TiT^{-1} = -i$$

and now treat $i$ as an scalar (what is! not a pseudo-!) and it turns out

$$Ti(-T)^* = -T^2 i = -i \Rightarrow T^2 = 1$$

that is what we know about $T$ so it should be wrong that thingy of Wikipedia... ;).

The only real explanation could be a phase, not that $i$ changes it sign when you tossed it with $T$.

share|cite|improve this answer
What's wrong with my argument/calculation? – stringparser Oct 26 '11 at 9:09
The argument is on a deeper level: $T$ isn't a linear operator, so most of what you've written above doesn't work. You need to go back to Wigner's theorem: a symmetry can either act on your Hilbert space as some unitary operator (the normal case), or as an antiunitary operator $U$ such that $(U \Phi, U \Psi) = (\Phi, \Psi)^*$ (i.e. which flips the complex inner product on your space). If this is the case, $U$ is necessarily antilinear, i.e. $U(a \Psi + b \Phi) = a^* U \Psi + b^* U \Phi$. – Gerben Oct 26 '11 at 16:42

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.