Intuition for why d<p>/dt = -dV(<x>)/dx

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EquationOfMotion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intuition
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 6K views
EquationOfMotion
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
Is there any good physical or graphical intuition for why ##\frac{d \langle p \rangle}{dt} = -\frac{\partial V(\langle x \rangle)}{\partial x}##? Classically this is apparently true.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
EquationOfMotion said:
Is there any good physical or graphical intuition for why ##\frac{d \langle p \rangle}{dt} = -\frac{\partial V(\langle x \rangle)}{\partial x}##? Classically this is apparently true.

Thanks.

In classical physics potential is defined so that ##F = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}##.

Your equation is, however, not correct. It should be:

##\frac{d \langle p \rangle}{dt} = -\langle \frac{\partial V(x)}{\partial x} \rangle##
 
PeroK said:
In classical physics potential is defined so that ##F = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}##.

Your equation is, however, not correct. It should be:

##\frac{d \langle p \rangle}{dt} = -\langle \frac{\partial V(x)}{\partial x} \rangle##

I think ##\frac{d \langle p \rangle}{dt} = -\langle \frac{\partial V(x)}{\partial x} \rangle## is the Ehrenfest theorem. The Wikipedia page however notes that were quantum expectation values to be consistent with Newtonian mechanics, we'd have ##F = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}##. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.