I Commutator of x and p in quantum mechanics

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter rbphysics
  • Start date Start date
rbphysics
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
Is it a postulate?
The commutator of [x,p]=i$\hbar$. Is it a postulate? No book state it as postulate of Quantum mechanics. But, I don't see anything more general by which I can derieve this. At elementary level Quantum mechanics, one start with momentum operator in position representation to derieve this. But that would mean to take momentum operator as postulate. But If we take the commutator as postulate one can derieve momentum operator in position representation as well as position operator in momentum repres
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rbphysics said:
But that would mean to take momentum operator as postulate.
Momentum is the Noether current associated with translation invariance. The momentum operator is the generator of translations. This is the principle from which the momentum operator follows.

But where does ##\hbar## occur in this? It fixes the units, but its numerical value needs to be measured, or „postulated“ (with respect to your question).
 
Following your interest to find more profound idea in quantum mechanics, Heisenberg and Dirac observed that Poissson Bracket {A,B} which appears in analytic mechanics, especially in Hamilton's equation of motion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_bracket ) has its quantum version
$$ \frac{AB-BA}{i\hbar}$$
With this replacement all the classical mechanics structure becomes available in QM also.
As an example in CM, $$\{x,p\}=1$$ thus in QM
$$ \frac{xp-px}{i\hbar}=1$$
 
rbphysics said:
TL;DR Summary: Is it a postulate?

The commutator of [x,p]=i$\hbar$. Is it a postulate? No book state it as postulate of Quantum mechanics. But, I don't see anything more general by which I can derive this. At elementary level Quantum mechanics, one start with momentum operator in position representation to derieve this. But that would mean to take momentum operator as postulate. But If we take the commutator as postulate one can derive momentum operator in position representation as well as position operator in momentum repres
A common way to quantize classical systems ("canonical quantization") is indeed to take conjugate variables ##q,p## that follow Poisson bracket relation ##\{q,p\}=1## and swap it by ##[\hat q,\hat p]=i\hbar##. So in this formalism, it is indeed a postulate.
 
rbphysics said:
TL;DR Summary: Is it a postulate?

The commutator of [x,p]=i$\hbar$. Is it a postulate? No book state it as postulate of Quantum mechanics. But, I don't see anything more general by which I can derieve this. At elementary level Quantum mechanics, one start with momentum operator in position representation to derieve this. But that would mean to take momentum operator as postulate. But If we take the commutator as postulate one can derieve momentum operator in position representation as well as position operator in momentum repres
You can take it as a postulate, and together with the algebra of the space-time transformations you can derive Quantum mechanics. See for example the book by Ballentine.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top