How Can We Quantize the Celerity Operator in Lagrangian Mechanics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the quantization of the celerity operator in Lagrangian mechanics, specifically exploring how to express this operator within the framework of quantum mechanics. Participants examine the implications of using generalized velocities and the relationship between momentum and the Lagrangian.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to quantize the celerity operator \(\dot{q}\) in the expression \(p\dot{q} - L(q,\dot{q},t)|\Psi\rangle = E_{n}|\Psi\rangle\).
  • Another participant argues that \(\dot{q}\) should not appear in the Hamiltonian and suggests eliminating it in favor of momentum \(p\) defined as \(p = \partial L / \partial \dot{q}\).
  • A different participant references Julian Schwinger's work on the quantum action principle, noting his approach to defining relativistic quantum mechanics without relying on classical theories.
  • Concerns are raised about Hamiltonian quantization leading to scenarios where \(H\Psi = 0\), implying a lack of time evolution for the system.
  • One participant points out that if \(H = 0\), it leads to a similar problem regarding the relationship between momentum and the Lagrangian.
  • There are requests for references to Schwinger's papers, with one participant providing a link to a biography paper but noting that Schwinger's original papers are not freely available online.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of the celerity operator and its role in quantization. There is no consensus on the correct approach to quantizing the celerity operator or the implications of Hamiltonian quantization.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need to consider the relationship between generalized velocities and momentum, as well as the implications of Hamiltonian mechanics on time evolution. The discussion also touches on historical perspectives that may influence current understanding.

eljose
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Let be the Lagrangian of a particle:

[tex]L(q,\dot q,t)[/tex] my question is if we can get its quantizied version in the form:

[tex]p\dot q-L(q,\dot q,t)| \Psi>=E_{n}|\Psi >[/tex]

of course we know how to quantizy the Momentum operator the question is..¿how do we quantizy the "celerity" [tex]\dot q[/tex] operator acting over an state?..thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't write the Hamiltonian like that and still use the [itex]\dot{q}[/itex]. Just as in classical Hamiltonian mechanics, you have to eliminate [itex]\dot{q}[/itex] in favour of [itex]p = \partial L / \partial \dot{q},[/itex] and so you shouldn't have any "generalized velocity" (which is what you have called celerity) quantities appearing in the expression.

Just to be picky as well, I would ask that you put brackets around your operator acting on [itex]|\psi\rangle[/itex] on the left-hand-side.

Alternatively, you might want to eliminate the [itex]p[/itex] that you have put on the left-hand-side with the relation between [itex]p[/itex] and [itex]\dot{q}[/itex] given by [itex]p = \partial L / \partial \dot{q}.[/itex] In this case, I guess the operator [itex]\dot{q}[/itex] would be given by [itex]\hat{\dot{q}} =d \hat{x}/dt.[/itex]
 
Last edited:
I was just reading the perspective on Julian Schwinger in the History of Physics section of the arxiv. It mentioned his papers on the quantum action principle in fully relativistic form. Apparently he was concerned to have a way to define relativistic QM without starting with a classical theory, quantizing it, and then throwing it away.

Has anybody looked at these papers? Can anybody comment on the methodology?
 
The problem with Hamiltonian Quantization is that in several theories you have [tex]H\Psi= 0[/tex] so there wouldn,t be any time evolution of the system..

"self-adjoint" could you give the references to the arxiv papers about Julian Schwinger?..i would like to take a look at them.
 
Well if H = 0, then by definition

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^N p_i\dot{q}_i - L(\vec{q}, \dot{\vec{q}}, t) = 0[/tex]

so you will get the same problem, or have I missed something?
 
eljose said:
"self-adjoint" could you give the references to the arxiv papers about Julian Schwinger?..i would like to take a look at them.


The biography paper is at http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0606/0606153.pdf. Schwinger's own papers aren't on the arxiv; they were published in journals of the American Physical Society or Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, and those organizations are still charging for the online versions. Almost worth joining the APS ($109) to get to those great old works.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K