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
  • 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. $\endgroup$
    – fmc2
    Commented Feb 7, 2017 at 15:11

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Roughly speaking, the gauge potential is identical to connection where the gauge potential is related to amplitude (field variable).

The commutation relation in quantum theory can be written as the commutation relation of field variables (amplitude).

So it is natural to have the commutation relation expressed in connection.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please edit to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. $\endgroup$
    – Community Bot
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 7:08

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.