Classic Oscillator: Understanding Matrix Form with Shankar

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chimay
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oscillator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of matrices in quantum mechanics, specifically in the context of eigenvector bases as presented in Shankar's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics." Participants explore the implications of using canonical bases in relation to Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the confidence in using a canonical basis for matrices and vectors, suggesting that the physical problem does not inherently require a specified basis.
  • Another participant asserts that Shankar's condition necessitates using the same basis for all objects unless converting between bases, linking this to the Hamiltonian formulation.
  • A further response challenges the definition of canonical coordinates in Lagrangian mechanics, proposing that they are typically denoted as q_i and \dot{q}_i, and speculates on the meaning of "canonic basis" in relation to positions and accelerations of individual masses.
  • A participant expresses the need to review classical mechanics before engaging further in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit varying interpretations of the concept of canonical bases and their application in quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. There is no consensus on the definitions or implications of these terms, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of canonical coordinates and the implications of using different bases in quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. The discussion reflects a complexity in transitioning between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations.

chimay
Messages
81
Reaction score
8
Hi guys.
Recentely I'm approaching Quantum Mechanics starting from the mathematical basics.
In order to understand the benefit of representing a certain matrix in its eigenvectors basis my book makes the example I attached ( Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Shankar ).
Using matrix form it can be easily shown we can write this:
\begin{bmatrix} x_{1}'' \\ x_{2}'' \end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x_{1} \\ x_{2} \end{bmatrix}
a, b, c, d being proper coefficient.

The author says that both the matrix and the vectors refers to the canonic basis; how can we be so confident about this?
I mean that analysing the physical problem does not require any reference to the basis we will refer when we use the matrix form; yet representing an operator in matrix form requires to have specified what is the basis...
 

Attachments

  • DoppiaMolla.png
    DoppiaMolla.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 472
Physics news on Phys.org
Shankar is positing that condition. You must always use the same basis for all objects (vectors, matrices), except when you are converting from one basis to another.

So in this case you would write the Hamiltonian for the blocks and springs problem. If they are the coordinates for a valid Hamiltonian, then they are canonical.

If you instead write down any old coordinates and write the Lagrangian - well, your dynamics will be correct, but the coordinates will not be canonical until you carry out the transform to go from (p,q) of the Lagrangian to the (P,Q) of the Hamiltonian.
 
UltrafastPED said:
If you instead write down any old coordinates and write the Lagrangian - well, your dynamics will be correct, but the coordinates will not be canonical until you carry out the transform to go from (p,q) of the Lagrangian ...

Aren't the coordinates in Lagrangian mechanics q_i, \dot{q}_i ?

Anyway I think maybe what was meant by "canonic basis" w.r.t. the OP is that they are the positions and accelerations of the individual masses - as opposed to normal coordinates.
 
Thank you for your answers.
I need to study the second chapter ( Review of classical mechanics ) before reading your answers; I will post again then.

Thank you
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K