4
$\begingroup$

If we look at a particle in classical mechanics, the degrees of freedom increase as its size decreases like the degrees of freedom of an atom is more than that of molecule, and subsequently, the degrees of freedom of an electron is more than that of an atom. However, is the 'degrees of freedom' for a particle fixed in Quantum Mechanics? if so, what determines its degrees of freedom in Quantum Mechanics.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have no idea how you came up with this particular way of counting degrees of freedom. For one thing, degrees of freedom are model dependent. You can model the same system with different numbers of degrees of freedom, depending on the problem you are trying to solve. Degrees of freedom are well defined in quantum mechanics, but maybe we need to solve your general problems with the term first, before we can start discussing the details? $\endgroup$
    – CuriousOne
    Commented Dec 22, 2014 at 21:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne: I think OP is confused because textbooks always refer to "a quantum particle" as an abstract object, while the term "particle" also more specifically refers to an excitation of a fundamental quantum field, e.g. an electron. OP clearly is not a native English speaker, so it makes sense to reason from that point of view. $\endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    Commented Dec 22, 2014 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielSank: Sounds like a sound hypothesis with regards to the OP's reasoning. How do we explain the real concept, though? I can attack the same physical system (Earth) in classical mechanics with three, six or 1e38 degrees of freedom and get different results, depending on wether I want to solve the Kepler problem, the Kepler problem with rotation or the Kepler problem including the weather at atomic resolution. $\endgroup$
    – CuriousOne
    Commented Dec 22, 2014 at 22:14
  • $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne: That's a great point about the Earth. Would make a good answer. I tried to make that point in my answer. $\endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    Commented Dec 22, 2014 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ This answers here quora.com/… might be useful. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 20, 2015 at 20:00

1 Answer 1

9
$\begingroup$

I think you are just confused about the words. Textbooks say quantum "particle" to mean "anything which happens to have the Hamiltonian we're talking about right now". Consider, for example, the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian

$$H = \frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m} + \frac{1}{2} k \hat{x}^2 \, .$$

This Hamiltonian has two degrees of freedom: $x$ and $p$. It could apply to a single electron in one dimension under the influence of a parabolic potential. In that case we truly have a single "particle", and it really has two degrees of freedom: $x$ and $p$ (ignoring spin). However, the same Hamiltonian applies to an atom in a one dimensional crystal lattice (for small amplitude displacements). If we only consider the translational motion of the atom, then it too has two degrees of freedom: $x$ and $p$. In this case, the atom can be regarded as a "particle". However, if we perturb the atom with higher energy radiation we might excite one of its electrons into a higher state, or even cause that electron to leave the atom. If we're dealing with these higher energy processes, then we have to take into account the degrees of freedom internal to the atom, such as the electron degrees of freedom. In that case, the harmonic oscillator and its two degrees of freedom aren't enough to describe the system. So you see, the number of degrees of freedom is not something fixed in quantum mechanics, it depends on the system you are studying and the range of energies which perturb that system.

By the way, the quantum harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian applies even to a macroscopic $LC$ circuit under the right conditions. For example, if the circuit is made of superconducting metal and protected from too much external noise from radiation etc., then the electrons all sit in the superconducting ground state and can be ignored. In this case, only the current $I$ and voltage $V$ of the circuit are active degrees of freedom and again the Harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian applies:

$$H = \frac{1}{2}CV^2 + \frac{1}{2}LI^2 \, .$$

So you see, even an object as big as a circuit with a huge number of internal degrees of freedom including billions of atoms can be represented with a Hamiltonian with only two degrees of freedom in the right conditions.

Now that we said all of that, please note that whether or not a system is quantum mechanical isn't really the issue when you're deciding the number of degrees of freedom. What matters is what parts of the system are active. As CuriousOne says in the comments, the Earth can be regarded as a ball with six degrees of freedom: $x$, $y$, and $z$ components of position and momentum, but of course all of the $>10^{23}$ atoms in the earth have their own internal degrees of freedom. If you're calculating orbits, you don't care about those internal atoms and you ignore their degrees of freedom.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Yep. I think you got it. Would it help if we add that in classical mechanics degrees of freedom are additive, while in quantum mechanics they are defined by the tensor product on the individual Hilbert spaces, hence there seem to be many more of them? Sounds a bit too advanced, does it not? $\endgroup$
    – CuriousOne
    Commented Dec 22, 2014 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for the response so far, Phew That's a heck of a lot of things to understand. Actually, the concept of degrees of freedom came up while we were studying Statistical mechanics, I didnot like how my TA interpreted the degrees of freedom in QM as it depends on the Number of states occupied. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 22, 2014 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne: I wouldn't go there for this question. I just don't think that's what OP is asking about and I don't really think it clarifies the point at hand. $\endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    Commented Dec 22, 2014 at 22:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RoshanShrestha: Actually, talking about the number of occupied states is pretty similar to talking about which degrees of freedom are active, as in my answer. Is there any way in which we can improve this answer to your satisfaction? $\endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    Commented Dec 22, 2014 at 22:39
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielSank: I'll take your word for it. In any case, I think, it would be too hard to understand. $\endgroup$
    – CuriousOne
    Commented Dec 22, 2014 at 22:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.