Is Acceleration Quantization Valid in Quantum Mechanics?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of acceleration quantization in quantum mechanics (QM). Participants explore the relationship between classical mechanics (CM) and QM through canonical quantization rules, emphasizing the Hamiltonian formulation. Key equations include the motion equation constraint, represented as \(\hbar^{2} \partial_{xt} \Psi (x,t) + \frac{dV}{dx}\Psi(x,t) = 0\). The conversation also highlights the equivalence of the Schrödinger equation in accelerated frames and uniform gravitational potentials.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of canonical quantization rules in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics
  • Knowledge of the Schrödinger equation and its applications
  • Basic concepts of operators in quantum mechanics, particularly velocity and acceleration operators
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian in quantum mechanics
  • Study the implications of acceleration quantization on wavefunctions in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitational potentials
  • Learn about the Heisenberg picture and its application to quantum operators
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the intersection of classical and quantum mechanics, particularly those exploring advanced topics in quantum theory and acceleration effects.

Sangoku
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
acceleration quantization ??

If [tex]x \Psi (x,t)=x \Psi(x,t)[/tex]

and [tex]p \Psi (x,t)= -i\hbar \partial _{x} \Psi (x,t)[/tex]

then should it be [tex]a \Psi (x,t) = \dot p \Psi (x,t)= \hbar ^{2} \partial _{xt} \Psi (x,t)[/tex] using usual QM

So, the direct quantization of motion equation (constraint) should it read:

[tex]\hbar^{2} \partial _{xt} \Psi (x,t)+ \frac{dV}{dx}\Psi(x,t)=0[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, the main idea is that QM and CM can be connected using the famous "canonical quantization rules" iff the CM is presented in the Hamiltonian formulation in which there's no such thing as "generalized accelerations", since the fundamental variables are the generalized coordinates and velocities.

However, in the Heisenberg picture one can define the velocity and acceleration operators by

[tex]\hat{\vec{v}} :=\frac{d\hat{\vec{r}}}{dt}[/tex]

and

[tex]\hat{\vec{a}} :=\frac{d\hat{\vec{p}}}{dt}[/tex]

Their expressions can be found using the Heisenberg equations of motion which are known to be equivalent to the SE. But i don't see a way to represent [itex]\hat{\vec{a}}[/itex] as an operator on the [itex]L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}^{3}, d^{3}x, \mathbb{C}\right)[/itex].

I don't think, if, let's say, it would be possible to represent it, it would have a mixed derivative in it. No reason, just a hunch.
 
Sangoku said:
If [tex]x \Psi (x,t)=x \Psi(x,t)[/tex]

and [tex]p \Psi (x,t)= -i\hbar \partial _{x} \Psi (x,t)[/tex]

then should it be [tex]a \Psi (x,t) = \dot p \Psi (x,t)= \hbar ^{2} \partial _{xt} \Psi (x,t)[/tex] using usual QM

So, the direct quantization of motion equation (constraint) should it read:

[tex]\hbar^{2} \partial _{xt} \Psi (x,t)+ \frac{dV}{dx}\Psi(x,t)=0[/tex]
I would proceed in a different way. You should find out the hamiltonian and then apply the usual substitutions [itex]p \rightarrow -i \hbar \nabla[/itex] in order to formulate the Schroedinger equation. To calculate the hamiltonian I would start with a lagrangian:

[tex]L = \frac{1}{2} m (\dot x - a t)^2[/tex]

It is interesting that you will find out that, if you are free to choose the phase of the wavefunction, then the Schroedinger equation in an accelerated frame is equal to the Schroedinger equation in a uniform gravitational potential.

See this.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
660
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
387
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
979
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K