Correspondence between Hamiltonian mechanics and QM

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the correspondence between classical Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics (QM), focusing on the relationship between dynamical variables and operators. It establishes that position and momentum in classical mechanics correspond to linear Hermitian operators in QM, with the commutator of QM operators relating to the Poisson bracket of classical variables. The phase space in QM is identified as an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, contrasting with the finite-dimensional symplectic manifold of classical mechanics. The conversation also touches on the association of the propagator in QM with the vector field generated by the Hamiltonian, while addressing the complexities of mapping classical vector fields to QM operators. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the challenges in rigorously formulating these concepts, particularly in the context of topological quantum field theory.
guhan
Messages
43
Reaction score
1
To which entitity (operators, wavefunctions etc) in quantum mechanics do the dynamical variables and the hamiltonian vector fields that they generate (through Symplectic structure of classical mechanics) correspond to?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The dynamical variables of position and momenta correspond to (linear) Hermitian operators. In particular, the commutator of two QM operators is given by the imaginary unit times the poisson bracket of the corresponding classical variables. The phase space of a quantum system is in general an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, in contrast with the symplectic manifold of classical phase space.
 
Ok.

And to what (in QM) does the vector field, say \overline{df}, generated by a dynamical variable, say f (in Classical mechanics) correspond to?

I think I can associate the propagator in QM to the vector field generated by the Hamiltonian in classical mech, but what about other vector fields?
 
I thought I would give this thread a proper burial...

The formulation of QM is through a homomorphism of Lie algebras from the poisson bracket in classical hamiltonian mech to commutation relationships in QM. This is to handle the correspondence principle used in physics, in a more general way. The requirements are more than just the existence of this homomorphism (the kernel of which are the constant functions, i.e. f=constant). Although we would be tempted to associate X_f (the vector field generated by f in classical Hamiltonian mechanics) with the operators in QM, it turns out that it does not satisfy some axioms of pre-quantization (specifically, the axiom that constant functions should be mapped to multiplication by that function). In the end, we can associate -iX_f + f + \theta (X_f) (where d\theta = \Omega, the symplectic 2-form) to QM operators. Anyway, a full treatment of this is given in mathematical physics books under the topic of (geometric) 'pre-quantization'. As far as I understand, a closely related issue is proving to be a big hurdle in rigorously formulating topological QFT.

note: X_f = \overline{df} = 1-vector field that is generated by f and which corresponds to the 1-form df (correspondence is through the isomorphism between the tangent and cotangent space that is induced by the symplectic 2-form \Omega )
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top