I seem to have two approaches that I've seen and understand, but I can't quite see how they relate.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

1. Write a general time evolving state as a superposition of stationary states multiplied by their exp(-iEt/h) factors, and calculate <x>. We find that <x>=Acos(wt+b) as in classical physics (in the limit of large energies, the time evolving probability distribution spikes around this time evolving expectation value, so this works).

2. Look at the probability distribution of a stationary state for large n, and compare it to the probability distribution for a classical harmonic oscillator, and note that they are similar (if you just consider the envelope of the quantum mechanical prediction). However in this method, <x>=0.

So method 1 says that a classical oscillator has to be in a superposition of stationary states, method 2 says it is in a single stationary state. Method 1 is good on the grounds that we retrieve our usual oscillatory result, method 2 is good in that we see the probability distributions match. If you try to cross the methods over and prove the opposite things for each, then method 2 says <x>=0 (not good!), method 1 gives a time evolving probability distribution (hence <x>=f(t)), and so they disagree.

Each approach alone seems to make sense to me, but then they seem to be disagreeing when I compare them which is confusing me. Can anyone help, thanks :)

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Classical Limit of a Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**