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:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top