Is Direct Brute Force Quantization Possible for Equations of Motion?

lokofer
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
"Brute force" quantization..

Let's suppose we have the "Equation of motions" for a particle:

F(y'',y',y,x)=0 my question is if exsit a "direct" method to apply quantization rules..for example simply stating that:

F(y'',y',y,x)| \psi (x) >=0 or something similar.

- I'm not talking about the usual method (you use the Hamiltonian operator to get the Wave function) but a method to "Quantize" everything without using Hamiltonians or Lagrangians only with the equation of motion and similar...thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Hellman-feynman theorem deals with the quantum mechanics of forces, but no, there is no procedure which involves quantised forces.
 
Epicurus said:
The Hellman-feynman theorem deals with the quantum mechanics of forces, but no, there is no procedure which involves quantised forces.

Well, I don't know about that theorem, but I was once thinking about quantum mechanics as a probability fluidum (the Madelung interpretation), something I never published since I cannot believe it has not been done yet. In this case, let R^2 be the ``mass´´ density and \partial_{\mu} S be the integrable fluid velocity field. Then, the traditional navier stokes equation is:
R^2 \partial_t \partial_{\alpha}S + R^2 \partial_{\beta} S \partial_{\beta} \left( \partial_{\alpha} S \right) = \frac{R^2}{m} F_{\alpha} - \partial_{\alpha} p + \partial^{\beta} T_{\beta \alpha} and the usual continuity equation
\partial_t R^2 + \partial^{\alpha} \left( R^2 \partial_{\alpha} S \right) = 0
Now, let the pressure p = - \frac{1}{2m^2} \left( R \partial_{\beta} \partial^{\beta }R - \frac{1}{3} \partial_{\beta} R \partial^{\beta} R \right) and the stress tensor
T_{\alpha \beta} = - \frac{1}{m^2} \left( \partial_{\alpha}R \partial_{\beta} R - \frac{1}{3} \delta_{\alpha \beta} \partial_{\gamma} R \partial^{\gamma} R \right) then it is easy to prove that
with F_{\alpha} = - \partial_{\alpha} V, the Navier Stokes equation gives rise to the Hamilton Jacobi equation of Bohmian mechanics. Hence, this provides a general scheme for quantization of particles in general force fields. If you definately know this has not been done yet, give me a sign and I will post the ``paper'' on the arxiv.

It seems to me you cannot quantize general force fields (in the case of instantaneous action at a distance, there are no traveling waves, hence no particles), only those which can be derived from a (eventually distributional) field theory seem to be meaningful.

Careful
 
Last edited:
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top