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

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter EquationOfMotion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intuition
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equation d<p>/dt = -dV(<x>)/dx and its validity in classical physics. It is clarified that the correct formulation should be d<p>/dt = -<dV(x)/dx>, aligning with the Ehrenfest theorem. The relationship between force and potential is emphasized, where force is defined as F = -dV/dx. There is a mention of the connection between quantum expectation values and Newtonian mechanics, highlighting potential inconsistencies. Overall, the conversation seeks to establish a deeper understanding of the equation's implications in classical and quantum contexts.
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.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
827
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top