Unraveling QM Postulate 3: From Origin to Implications

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hasan_researc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the third postulate of quantum mechanics (QM), exploring its origins, implications, and the challenges associated with translating classical dynamical variables into quantum operators. Participants are examining both theoretical and conceptual aspects of this postulate.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the origins and implications of the third postulate of QM, specifically regarding the relationship between classical dynamical variables and quantum operators.
  • Another participant explains that classical quantities can be represented as sums of functions of commuting variables, noting that the algebra of quantum observables mirrors classical functions on phase space.
  • It is mentioned that in rare cases, finding a quantum operator corresponding to a classical quantity like xp_x can lead to issues with Hermiticity, suggesting a method of symmetrization as a potential solution.
  • A participant introduces Weyl Quantization, highlighting that it allows for the use of Fourier inversion to avoid complications with non-commuting operators.
  • Further discussion on Weyl Quantization indicates that while it simplifies certain aspects, it has limitations regarding positivity, which may have physical implications, and that other quantization methods may have different trade-offs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple competing views on the quantization methods and their implications, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached on the best approach or understanding of the postulate.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the discussion, such as the dependence on specific definitions of quantization methods and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical steps involved in deriving quantum operators from classical quantities.

hasan_researc
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Hey, I am a second year physicist, and I have only recently been introduced to the postulates of QM. I am still trying hard to understand how the original inventor's of QM came up with the third postulate.

Postulate 3 says the classical combination of dynamical variables gives the correct combination
of operators in quantum mechanics.

Why/how did they make up this postulate?
What are its implications?

Combination of dynamics variables (e.g. p) gives the correct combination of operators (e.g. ?) in QM? ::confused::
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually these are quantities of the form f(x)+f(p) or of the form [tex]x p_y[/tex] - that is sums of functions of commuting variables. There is no ambiguity there and the algebra of commuting quantum observables is isomorphic to the algebra of the corresponding classical functions on the phase space. Taking sums is justified by the fact that the expectation value of a sum is a sum of expectation values.

Ocassionally (bur it is rare) it happens that we have to find a quantum operator that corresponds to a classical quantity like [tex]xp_x[/tex]. Then we have a problem because the corresponding quantum operator is not Hermitian. The simplest way out is to symmetrize and take [tex]\frac12 (xp_x+p_x x)[/tex] as the corresponding quantum observable. Sometimes that works, sometimes not. But these are, as I said, rare cases.
 
There is also Weyl Quantization. Using Fourier inversion you don't have to worry about non-commuting operators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_quantization"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
martinbn said:
There is also Weyl Quantization. Using Fourier inversion you don't have to worry about non-commuting operators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_quantization"
There are many different quantizations. Once you choose one - the rest follows from your choice. Weyl's quantization is defective in the sense that it does not respect positivity - which seems to have a physical meaning. Other quantizations may respect positivity but dot respect something else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 130 ·
5
Replies
130
Views
10K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
10K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
13K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K