Poisson Bracket to Commutator, What Does it REALLY Mean?

In summary, Quantum mechanics models the behavior of a commutator structure- simultaneous eigenbasis, etc. When we have our classical equation with Poisson bracket, we are changing the assumption about our system- we're now assuming that it must be this, which is the commutator.
  • #1
maverick_starstrider
1,119
6
Let me just head off the first waves of posts this thread will likely get. I am very fluent in quantum mechanics. I am completely aware of the behaviour of a commutator structure: simultaneous eigenbasis, etc. I understand how commutators model the structure that quantum mechanics has. My question is, when I have my classical equation

[tex]\frac{d A}{dt} = \{ A , H \}+ \frac{\partial A}{\partial t}[/tex]

and I say [tex] \{ A, H \} \rightarrow [A,H] [/tex] what single fundamental ASSUMPTION am I changing about my reality? I've read about symplectic manifolds and moyal brackets and such but what intuitively/physically is occurring in this transition?

I would like to be able to make a statement like:

In classical mechanics we assumed our universe has property BLAH, however, in reality it has property BLARG. In our equation we had our classical poisson bracket which represented THIS about our system, however, in light of our new assumptions we can CALCULATE that it must be THIS, which is called the commutator.

With all the capitalized stuff filled in.

Thanks for the help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Quantum mechanics is exact theory, while classical mechanics is just an approximation. So, it makes more sense to ask how classical Poisson brackets arise as an approximation to quantum commutators? This question is easier to answer than your original question.

For a single particle any quantum observable can be represented as a function of position and momentum observables [itex]F = f(x,p) [/itex]. Here I use 1-dimensional case for simplicity. Then one can prove that commutator of two Hermitian observables can be represented as a series in powers of [itex] \hbar [/itex]

[tex] [F, G] = i \hbar K_1 + i \hbar^2 K_2 + \ldots [/tex]

Finally, it is not difficult to prove that the most significant term [itex] K_1 [/itex] on the right hand side has exactly the form of Poisson bracket

[tex] [f(x,p), g(x,p)] = i \hbar \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\frac{\partial g}{\partial p} - \frac{\partial f}{\partial p}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x} \right) + \ldots [/tex]

Eugene.
 
  • #3
Hmm... That's very interesting. But whenever we construct a quantum field theory or theory we start with a classical lagrangian which we generally motivate by some assumptions of locality and simplicity and such and then we quantize it. Is it possible to do the reverse? Can one motivate a quantum theory/field theory with a built in commutator structure and then approximate it as above to receive the classical theory?
 
  • #4
The peoblem is to 'guess' the correct quantum theory. In principle this is possible, but in practice we often start with a classical theory we know and then try to quantize it; guessing a classical theoriy is much easier.

This is like building a house based on a drawing. w/o having ever seen a house the drawing alone will not help; but w/o the dawing even an expert will not be able to build the house correctly. So even if the starting point is only a sketch and even if the construction itself requires some assumptions, the whole procedure seems to make sense.
 
  • #5
tom.stoer said:
The peoblem is to 'guess' the correct quantum theory. In principle this is possible, but in practice we often start with a classical theory we know and then try to quantize it; guessing a classical theoriy is much easier.

This is like building a house based on a drawing. w/o having ever seen a house the drawing alone will not help; but w/o the dawing even an expert will not be able to build the house correctly. So even if the starting point is only a sketch and even if the construction itself requires some assumptions, the whole procedure seems to make sense.

But that just gets back to the initial problem. The physical interpretation and justification of the poisson bracket -> commutator transition. Plus I don't much like this notion of "guessing" without appealing to some symmetry or locality requirement, ec.
 
  • #6
maverick_starstrider said:
[...]The physical interpretation and justification of the poisson bracket -> commutator transition. Plus I don't much like this notion of "guessing" without appealing to some symmetry or locality requirement, ec.

In both the classical and quantum cases, one usually has a set of observable quantities. In CM, different observables can be measured in any order (for a system in a given state), and the state space is essentially a classical phase space. One represents the symmetries, observables, etc, as a commuting algebra of functions on that phase space.

In QM we start with that same algebra of observables, and demand that there exists a linear mapping from any observable to a number (for the system in a given state), and the state space is a (rigged) Hilbert space. Inner products on the Hilbert can be interpreted as a (nondeterministic) transition amplitude between states. IOW, we're combining the algebra of observables with a statistical interpretation. The latter was absent in the ordinary CM case, hence we were able to use a simpler state space (phase space).

In CM, the algebra of observables is encoded in the form of Poisson brackets between the functions. In QM it's the commutation relations of operators on Hilbert space. In both cases, we're trying to construct a representation of the same algebra of observables, but on different state spaces.

For higher order products in the algebra of observables, the transition to operators on Hilbert space might be ambiguous. Sometimes, simple symmetrization of the operators in a product works ok for resolving the ambiguity satisfactorily.

HTH.
 
  • #7
strangerep said:
In both the classical and quantum cases, one usually has a set of observable quantities. In CM, different observables can be measured in any order (for a system in a given state), and the state space is essentially a classical phase space. One represents the symmetries, observables, etc, as a commuting algebra of functions on that phase space.

In QM we start with that same algebra of observables, and demand that there exists a linear mapping from any observable to a number (for the system in a given state), and the state space is a (rigged) Hilbert space. Inner products on the Hilbert can be interpreted as a (nondeterministic) transition amplitude between states. IOW, we're combining the algebra of observables with a statistical interpretation. The latter was absent in the ordinary CM case, hence we were able to use a simpler state space (phase space).

In CM, the algebra of observables is encoded in the form of Poisson brackets between the functions. In QM it's the commutation relations of operators on Hilbert space. In both cases, we're trying to construct a representation of the same algebra of observables, but on different state spaces.

For higher order products in the algebra of observables, the transition to operators on Hilbert space might be ambiguous. Sometimes, simple symmetrization of the operators in a product works ok for resolving the ambiguity satisfactorily.

HTH.

What is this general algebra of observables?
 
  • #8
maverick_starstrider said:
What is this general algebra of observables?
In general, the algebra of observables is specific to the particular class of system being studied. It's not one-algebra-fits-all.

E.g., for nonrelativistic systems, the generators of Galilean transformations form a (sub)algebra for the overall dynamical algebra. (The latter contains additional stuff related to the potential.)

But, hmmm, that probably doesn't help, right? I'm not sure at what level I should try to answer this. You'll have to give me a bit more to work with in your question.
 

1. What is a Poisson bracket?

A Poisson bracket is a mathematical operation used to describe the dynamics of physical systems. It is a way to calculate how two quantities, such as position and momentum, change over time.

2. What is a commutator in relation to a Poisson bracket?

A commutator is a mathematical operator that describes the way two quantities, such as position and momentum, interact with each other. In the context of a Poisson bracket, the commutator represents the difference between the classical and quantum mechanical descriptions of a physical system.

3. How is a Poisson bracket related to Hamiltonian mechanics?

A Poisson bracket is an essential tool in Hamiltonian mechanics, which is a mathematical formulation of classical mechanics. It is used to derive the equations of motion for a physical system in terms of its Hamiltonian, which is a function that describes the system's energy.

4. What does it mean for two quantities to commute?

In mathematics, two quantities are said to commute if their order does not affect the result of an operation. In the context of a Poisson bracket and commutator, this means that the order in which the quantities are multiplied does not affect the result of the calculation.

5. How is the concept of a Poisson bracket used in other fields of science?

The concept of a Poisson bracket has applications in various fields of science, such as mechanics, electromagnetism, and statistical mechanics. It is also used in quantum mechanics to describe the dynamics of particles and in economics to model financial systems.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
2
Views
803
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top