Classical limit of the commutator is a derivative?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the claim that the limit of the commutator divided by ħ approaches a derivative as ħ approaches zero, specifically relating to the classical Poincare commutator. It is noted that the commutator can be expressed as a series involving Hermitian operators, which confirms its anti-Hermitian nature and its tendency to zero as ħ approaches zero. The limit of the scaled commutator is interpreted as the classical Poisson bracket, suggesting that it can indeed be viewed as a derivative with respect to ħ at this limit. This perspective is affirmed by participants in the discussion, highlighting the mathematical relationship between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the insightful nature of the claim.
pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
I just came across the following claim:

\lim_{\hbar\rightarrow 0}[\frac{1}{\hbar}(AB-BA)]

(which approaches the classical Poincare commutator) is a derivative with respect to \hbar. I know it looks like derivative, but is it really? Please elaborate.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pellman said:
I just came across the following claim:

\lim_{\hbar\rightarrow 0}[\frac{1}{\hbar}(AB-BA)]

(which approaches the classical Poincare commutator) is a derivative with respect to \hbar. I know it looks like derivative, but is it really? Please elaborate.

The commutator can be generally written as a series

[A,B] = i \hbarK_1 + i\hbar^2K_2 + i \hbar^3 K^3 + \ldots

where K_i are Hermitian operators. This follows simply from the fact that [A,B] is antiHermitian and that it must tend to zero as \hbar \rightarrow 0. So the limit

-\frac{i}{\hbar}\lim_{\hbar\rightarrow 0}[A,B] = K_1

(which is the classical Poisson bracket of A and B) can be regarded as the derivative of [A,B] with respect to \hbar at \hbar \rightarrow 0.

Eugene.
 
Very cool. Thanks, Eugene!
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
857
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K