Undergrad Classical vs. Quantum Defintion of Energy in Field Theory

Click For Summary
Classical fields are modeled using harmonic oscillators, where energy is proportional to amplitude squared, while in quantum field theory (QFT), energy relates to frequency and is quantized. The connection between classical and quantum definitions of energy is established through Hamiltonian mechanics, with both frameworks ultimately describing the same physical phenomena. The quantization of energy in quantum harmonic oscillators is not arbitrary; it is supported by experimental evidence and relates to the principle quantum number. The spring constant serves as a mathematical link between classical amplitude and quantum frequency energy definitions. Overall, classical physics represents average behavior, while quantum theory provides a more fundamental description of energy states.
LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
358
Reaction score
33
Classical fields are usually constructed using a collection of classical harmonic oscillators, e.g. masses connected to springs. The energy of a classical harmonic oscillator is proportional to the amplitude squared. QFT uses quantized versions of those same classical fields. But, in the quantum domain energy is proportional to frequency, not amplitude squared. Is there any mathematical connection between this classical definition of energy and the quantum definition (frequency)? Or is the classical definition of energy simply discarded and arbitrarily replaced with the quantum definition?

As always, thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The frequency of a HO is a characteristic of the system in both the classical and quantum regimes.
The energy stored in the quantum HO is proportional to "n" - the principle quantum number.
The quantization is not arbitrary - the value of h was determined from experiiment, and the quantization was demonstrated the same way.

Note: for the classical HO: ##E= m\omega^2A^2## ... so now it is in terms of both amplitude and frequency.
... for a quantized SHO, the amplitude A is related to the energy level n as: ##\frac{1}{2}kA^2 = (n+\frac{1}{2})\hbar\omega## ... that is to say, if you somehow had a physical mass on a spring that could only have quantized energy, then the amplitude would also be quantized.

None of this is arbitrary - it was not just pulled from the air.
The quantization is demonstrated in Nature.

Both the classical and quantum descriptions are modeled through hamiltonian mechanics.
The classical version is what you get on average over the quantum versions.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
Simon Bridge said:
The frequency of a HO is a characteristic of the system in both the classical and quantum regimes.
The energy stored in the quantum HO is proportional to "n" - the principle quantum number.
The quantization is not arbitrary - the value of h was determined from experiiment, and the quantization was demonstrated the same way.

Note: for the classical HO: ##E= m\omega^2A^2## ... so now it is in terms of both amplitude and frequency.
... for a quantized SHO, the amplitude A is related to the energy level n as: ##\frac{1}{2}kA^2 = (n+\frac{1}{2})\hbar\omega## ... that is to say, if you somehow had a physical mass on a spring that could only have quantized energy, then the amplitude would also be quantized.

None of this is arbitrary - it was not just pulled from the air.
The quantization is demonstrated in Nature.

Both the classical and quantum descriptions are modeled through hamiltonian mechanics.
The classical version is what you get on average over the quantum versions.

Thanks. I forgot about the "spring constant" k. That is the mathematical connection between the amplitude (classical) version of energy and the frequency (quantum) version. Also, I did not mean to imply that the quantum version of energy was completely arbitrary, only that I could not be mathematically derived from the classical/amplitude version.
 
I'm not being clear: classical and quantum use the same definition of energy.
[edit] Also ... No quantum theory is derived from the classical. If it was possible to do this, then quantum theory would be a subset of classical theory and we wouldn't actually need it for what we use it for.
What you need to look for is a derivation of the classical result from the quantum theory.
Classical physics is what happens on average.
 
Last edited:
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
556
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 113 ·
4
Replies
113
Views
13K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K