Classical vs. Quantum Defintion of Energy in Field Theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the definitions of energy in classical and quantum field theory, exploring the mathematical connections and conceptual differences between the two frameworks. Participants examine how energy is represented in classical harmonic oscillators compared to quantized harmonic oscillators, and whether the classical definition is retained or replaced in the quantum context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that classical fields are constructed using harmonic oscillators, where energy is proportional to amplitude squared, while in quantum field theory, energy is proportional to frequency.
  • Others argue that the frequency of a harmonic oscillator is a characteristic of the system in both regimes, and that the quantization of energy is not arbitrary but experimentally determined.
  • A participant points out the mathematical connection between classical and quantum energy definitions, highlighting that the classical energy expression involves both amplitude and frequency.
  • One participant asserts that no quantum theory is derived from classical theory, suggesting that classical physics describes average behavior rather than the underlying quantum mechanics.
  • There is a reiteration that the classical and quantum definitions of energy are fundamentally the same, though the implications and derivations differ.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the classical definition of energy is discarded in favor of the quantum definition or if they are fundamentally the same. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the derivation of classical results from quantum theory.

Contextual Notes

Some participants emphasize the need for a derivation of classical results from quantum theory, indicating a potential limitation in understanding the relationship between the two frameworks.

LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
360
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   Reactions: 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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K