4
$\begingroup$

I was wondering if the canonical commutation relations have any connection to geometry? If so, could you explain the connection in fairly simple and intuitive terms?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is an interesting subject, it would be very difficult for me to properly answer here, however, I think You can take a look at the paper "from equations of motions to canonical commutation relations". It contains a lot of discussion on the theme, as well as a very good bibliography on the subject. $\endgroup$ – Ittiolo Feb 7 '17 at 15:11
2
$\begingroup$

Well, this is a fairly broad topic.

  1. Here is one way CCRs arise from a rather large class of geometries: Given a Fedosov manifold $(M,\omega, \nabla)$ [i.e. a manifold $M$ endowed with a symplectic $2$-form $\omega$ with a compatible torsion-free connection$^1$ $\nabla$], Fedosov proved the existence of an associative star product $$f\star g~=~fg +{\cal O}(\hbar)\tag{1}$$ of functions $f,g\in C^{\infty}(M)$ in the context of deformation quantization$^2$. The star commutator $$[f\stackrel{\star}{,}g]~:=~f\star g-g\star f~=~i\hbar\{f,g\}_{PB}+{\cal O}(\hbar^2) \tag{2}$$ corresponds to a commutator of operators via a symbol-operator correspondence map. The Darboux theorem ensures the local existence of canonical coordinates $(q^1, \ldots, q^n,p_1, \ldots, p_n)$. CCRs therefore make sense.

  2. For an elementary discussion of the connection between commutators & Poisson brackets, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.

--

$^1$ A symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ always has such connection $\nabla$; it is however not unique. See also e.g. this related Phys.SE post.

$^2$ Kontsevich extended the construction of an associative star product (1) to an arbitrary Poisson manifold.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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