Understanding commutator relations

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TheCanadian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutator Relations
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and understanding of commutator relations in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of quantized electromagnetic fields and canonical variables. Participants explore the transition from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, the role of operators, and the significance of the commutation relations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the fundamental reasoning behind the requirement that all canonical variables have commutators equal to ##i\hbar## and seeks intuition regarding the operators' definitions.
  • Another participant notes that the transition from classical to quantum mechanics involves replacing Poisson brackets with commutators, a concept attributed to Dirac, which they suggest is more of a postulate than a provable statement.
  • Some participants mention that different representations of the operators exist, such as ##\hat{x} = i\hbar \partial_p## and ##\hat{p} = p##, emphasizing that the satisfaction of canonical commutation relations is crucial for obtaining the correct classical limit.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the justification for the value of ##g = i\hbar## and the derivation of commonly used operators for position and momentum, indicating a lack of clarity in the source material.
  • Another participant references the historical context, noting that Schrödinger discovered the relationship through differential operators in 1926, while Heisenberg established the commutation relations using infinite matrices the previous year.
  • One participant discusses the choice of units in quantum mechanics, suggesting that using natural units simplifies the expressions by eliminating universal conversion factors like ##\hbar##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and agreement regarding the derivation of operators and the implications of commutation relations. There is no consensus on the justification for certain values or the clarity of the source material.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the source material, particularly regarding the justification for the value of ##\hbar## and the derivation of operators. There is also mention of the dependence on specific representations and the historical context of the discoveries.

TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13
I am reading through a quantum optics book where they are deriving the equations for a quantized EM field and one of the paragraphs state:

"In Section 6.1, the problem has been set in the Hamiltonian form by expressing the total energy (6.55) of the system comprising charges and electromagnetic field in terms of the pairs of conjugate canonical variables ##(r_\mu, p_\mu)## and ##(Q_l, P_l)##. Canonical quantization consists in replacing these pairs of canonical variables by pairs of Hermitian operators with commutators set equal to ##i\hbar##."

Now I understand using the operators ## \hat{x} = x## and ##\hat{p_x} = -i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ## that the commutator is ##i\hbar## but what necessitates all canonical variables requiring this as the result of their commutator? I guess I'm just missing something fairly fundamental here; namely on how these operators were established in the first place (i.e. why does momentum involve a derivative and position simply a scalar multiplication) and the intuition/meaning behind a commutator value of precisely ##i\hbar##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Classical to quantum involves replacing Poisson brackets in classical mechanics by commutators in quantum mechanics, as first realized by Dirac (I think this is more like a postulate than something that can be proved). Then, the Poisson bracket of canonically conjugate variables (Cartesian position and momentum is just one example of such a pair) in classical mechanics gives the desired quantum result.
 
You can as well use the operators ##\hat x= i\hbar \partial_p## and ##\hat p = p##, which gives the momentum representation. There are still other representations that one can use, although these are the two most common. The point is not the particular representation but that the canonical commutation relations are satisfied. This is needed to get the correct classical limit, where the scaled commutator turns into the Poisson bracket. To understand canonical variables you need to be familiar with Poisson brackets.
 
A. Neumaier said:
You can as well use the operators ##\hat x= i\hbar \partial_p## and ##\hat p = p##, which gives the momentum representation. There are still other representations that one can use, although these are the two most common. The point is not the particular representation but that the canonical commutation relations are satisfied. This is needed to get the correct classical limit, where the scaled commutator turns into the Poisson bracket. To understand canonical variables you need to be familiar with Poisson brackets.

George Jones said:
Classical to quantum involves replacing Poisson brackets in classical mechanics by commutators in quantum mechanics, as first realized by Dirac (I think this is more like a postulate than something that can be proved). Then, the Poisson bracket of canonically conjugate variables (Cartesian position and momentum is just one example of such a pair) in classical mechanics gives the desired quantum result.

I've gone through these notes and they clear up a lot. Although when looking at equation 5.103, there is no justification for ## g = i\hbar ## (i.e. why ##\hbar = 1.054 \times 10^{-34}## is correct) and I guess I've just never come across one. Furthermore, by using 5.105, I am still not quite seeing how the commonly used operators for ##x## and ##p_x## were derived and how this generalizes for all canonical variables.
 
TheCanadian said:
how the commonly used operators for x and p_x were derived
This was the discovery of Schroedinger 1926, for which he go the Nobel prize. Heisenberg had found the commutation relations the year before (using infinite matrices), and Schroedinger then realized them through differential operators. One can only discover them, and then deriving the CCR from them to check that they do the right thing.
 
The value ##\hbar## takes is just by our choice of arbitrary units, called the SI units. It's much more "natural" to use units, where all universal conversion factors like ##\hbar## (modified Planck's quantum of action), ##c## (limiting speed of relativity aka speed of light in vacuo) are set to 1. Then you have only one arbitrary unit left, which in microscopic physics is chosen as eV (or GeV) or fm. If you also set Newton's gravitational constant to 1 you don't need any units anymore, and everything is expressed in dimensionless quantities (Planck units).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TheCanadian and Truecrimson

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
877
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K