Graduate Geometry Topology and Physics: Nakahara, Chapt. 1: Weyl Ordering

  • Thread starter Thread starter XiYi
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on deducing a specific line from a formula in Nakahara's text on Weyl ordering in quantum mechanics. The author notes the challenge in grasping the logic behind the deduction despite understanding related concepts from Srednicki's QFT. Key points include Trotter's method of splitting the exponential operator into kinetic and potential components, leading to a Gaussian integral that produces a significant term. The Taylor expansion of the potential around the midpoint introduces corrections, while remaining inconsistencies are classified as higher-order terms. The emphasis on Weyl ordering highlights the symmetric arrangement of the Hamiltonian, ensuring the average potential value is accurately represented in the integral.
XiYi
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
In the text, the author try to deduce proposition 1.2, here is the detail (all in one dimention):
1750142614926.webp

1750142649380.webp

1750142696918.webp

1750142714484.webp

My question is the last line of formula, how to deduce it from the previous line? Here is a note of the author:

1750142979727.webp

I understand the similar part of Srednicki QFT at chap 6 and I could get the point of nakahara, but can't seize the logic. It bother me a lot. Thanks for giving help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Trotter splits ##e^{−i(T+V)ε}## into “purely kinetic” and “purely potential”.
The Gaussian integral yields the leading term ##exp[im(x−y)^2/(2ε)]## and normalization.
Taylor potential around the midpoint 𝑧=(𝑥+𝑦)/2 yields −iεV((x+y)/2) plus ##𝑂(𝜀(𝑥−𝑦)^2)##.
All remaining inconsistencies are ##𝑂(ε^2)##.
Weyl ordering — to emphasize that the Hamiltonian is arranged symmetrically, and when moving to the end of the integral over phase space, exactly the average value of the potential 𝑉 appears on the segment between 𝑥 and 𝑦.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 264 ·
9
Replies
264
Views
22K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
11K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 150 ·
6
Replies
150
Views
23K
Replies
26
Views
18K
Replies
2
Views
2K